Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shri Ram Pathya Granthagar Samiti vs Seth Jugaldas Ganediwala Trust ... on 20 July, 2023
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2023:RJ-JD:22663]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 201/2022
Shri Ram Pathya Granthagar Samiti, Registered Society No.
17/86, Near Ashok Sthamb, Post Ratangarh Distt. Churu,
Through Its Secretary Ambika Prasad Sharma, Aged About 60
Years, R/o Near Ashok Sthamb, Station Road, Teshil Ratangarh,
District Churu.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Seth Jugaldas Ganediwala Trust, Kolkata, Through Its
Managing Trustee Hanuman Prasad S/o Late Shri
Rameshwardas B/c Ganediwala, R/o Shriram Road,
Ground Floor, Civil Lines, Delhi.
2. Ramgovind S/o Shri Sanwalram, B/c Ganediwala, R/o 25-
S, Block-B, New Alipur, Kolkata-53.
3. Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Ram Gopal, B/c Ganediwala, R/o 33
Cr Avenue, Iii Floor, Flat No. 302, Kolkata-12.
4. Narain Prasad S/o Late Shri Ramawatar, B/c Ganediwala,
R/o 114,4A, Vidhan Sarni, Shyam Bazar, I Floor, Kolkata-
4.
5. Mahendra Kumar S/o Shri Biharilal, B/c Modi, R/o Ganedi,
Tehsil And District Sikar, Rajasthan.
6. Hanuman Prasad S/o Late Shri Rameshwardas, B/c
Ganediwala, R/o 16, Shriram Road, Ground Floor, Civil
Lines, Delhi-54. All Trustees Through Hanuman Prasad S/
o Late Shri Rameshwardas R/o 16, Shriram Road, Ground
Floor, Civil Lines, Delhi-54.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.S. Kotwani assisted by
Mr. Aman Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.R. Goyal
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order 20/07/2023
1. The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 27.09.2022 whereby the application under Order 21 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure as preferred jointly by the defendant-petitioner-Samiti and one Lalit Kumar has been rejected.
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 02:59:18 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:22663] (2 of 5) [CR-201/2022]
2. Against the order impugned, Lalit Kumar preferred a writ petition whereas the present petitioner-Samiti preferred the present revision petition. Vide order dated 18.04.2023, the writ petition as preferred by Lalit Kumar has been dismissed and the order dated 27.09.2022 has been affirmed.
3. Admittedly, the present revision petition has also been filed assailing the same order dated 27.09.2022 against which S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18524/2022 had been preferred by Lalit Kumar wherein the order impugned has been affirmed. In the specific opinion of this Court, once the order impugned dated 27.09.2022 has been affirmed by a Co-ordinate bench of this Court, this Court, may be in writ jurisdiction, this Court in revisional jurisdiction, cannot exercise its powers and take a contrary view to the order passed in the writ petition. In Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar vs Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat, (1969) 2 SCC 74, a similar question arose before the Hon'ble Apex Court -
"Whether it would be right and proper for the High Court to interfere with an order of a subordinate court in a writ petition when a petition for revision under Section 115, C.P.C., against the same order has been dismissed. Such a consideration will also enter into the exercise of discretion in a petition under Article 225 or 227."
Replying to the above question, Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"8. Even on the assumption that the order of the appellate court had not merged in the order of the single Judge who had disposed of the revision petition we are of the view that a writ petition ought not to have been entertained by the High Court when the respondent had already chosen the remedy under Section 115 of the CPC. If there are two modes of invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court and one of those modes has been chosen and exhausted it would not be a proper and sound exercise of discretion to grant relief in the other set (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 02:59:18 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:22663] (3 of 5) [CR-201/2022] of proceedings in respect of the same order of the subordinate court. The refusal to grant relief in such circumstances would be in consonance with the anxiety of the court to prevent abuse of process as also to respect and accord finality to its own decisions."
4. Applying the above ratio to the present matter, this Court is of the clear opinion that the order dated 18.04.2023 passed in the writ petition assailing the same order impugned would definitely govern the present matter also and the order impugned once having been affirmed, the present revision petition would not even survive.
5. Moreover, it is clear on record that the application under Order 21 Rule 16, CPC was preferred before the Executing Court jointly by the present petitioner-Samiti as well as Lalit Kumar. However, assailing the order impugned, Lalit Kumar preferred a writ petition wherein the present petitioner-Samiti was not impleaded as party respondent and the Samiti preferred the present revision petition wherein Lalit Kumar has not been impleaded as party respondent. The same is a clear abuse of the process of law and clearly with a malafide intent to overreach the earlier orders passed by the Executing Court as well as this Court.
6. Further, on 24.02.2023, a specific statement was made by Secretary of the petitioner Society before this Court that the Samiti has handed over the possession to Lalit Kumar. When once the possession has been handed over by the Samiti, what interest survives in the present litigation is not comprehensible. As observed by this Court in its order dated 24.02.2023, the Executing Court had, vide order dated 17.02.2023, specifically directed to take possession from the person whosoever is found in possession and hand over the same to the decree holder. It is (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 02:59:18 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:22663] (4 of 5) [CR-201/2022] clear that only to surpass the said order passed by the Executing Court, the present revision petition has been pursued despite the writ petition preferred by Lalit Kumar having been dismissed.
7. It is clear on record that the decree in favour of respondent No.1-Trust had been passed way back in the year 2011 and till date, the Trust has not been able to get possession of the property. Continuous tactics have been adopted by both, Lalit Kumar and Samiti to somehow usurp the orders passed by the Court and the same had been observed by this Court in the earlier revision petition filed jointly by Lalit Kumar & present Samiti too. In S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.7/2016; Lalit Kumar & Ors. vs. Shri Ram Pathya Granthagar Samiti, Ratangarh & Anr., the Court observed as under:
"The conduct of the petitioners is strange, inasmuch as, despite being decree-holders, instead of filing an application for executing the decree, they on their own, approached the executing court by filing application seeking certification in favour of the judgment-debtor regarding the satisfaction of the decree and once they failed in their attempt, essentially to frustrate the right of other joint decree-holders, they have approached this Court by filing the revision petition seeking to justify their stand before the executing court, which conduct, as contended by learned counsel for the Trust, cannot be said to be bonafide."
8. The overall facts make it clear that the present revision petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. I may refer herein to an observation given in the case of Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 470:
"191. The Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted, with frivolous litigation. Ways and means need to be evolved, to deter litigants from their compulsive obsession, towards senseless and ill-considered claims. One needs to keep in mind, that in the process of litigation, there is an innocent sufferer on the other side, of every irresponsible and senseless claim. He suffers long drawn anxious (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 02:59:18 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:22663] (5 of 5) [CR-201/2022] periods of nervousness and restlessness, whilst the litigation is pending, without any fault on his part."
In view of the overall facts of the present case and the above observations, the present revision petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only). The cost be deposited with the Litigants Welfare Fund within a period of one month from now.
9. It is made clear that the Executing Court would be at liberty to proceed forthwith with the proceedings pending before it.
10. Stay petition and all the pending applications, if any, stand dismissed.
(REKHA BORANA),J 275-T.Singh/-
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 02:59:18 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)