Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sgpc vs Sumeeta Sandhu And Others on 5 July, 2012
Author: T.P.S. Mann
Bench: T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Regular Second Appeal 2310 of 2012(O&M)
Date of Decision : July 05, 2012
SGPC, Amritsar as Managing Committee
....Appellant
Versus
Sumeeta Sandhu and others
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with
Mr. B.B.S.Randhawa, Advocate
for the appellant.
T.P.S. MANN, J.
While filing the suit, the appellant sought declaration that the judgment and decree dated 7.11.1983 passed in civil suit No. 33-T of 9.11.1971/1982 and confirmed by the lower appellate Court was not binding upon it and the defendants had no right to get possession of the land in dispute in execution of the said decree. According to the appellant, the decree under challenge had been obtained by fraud and after concealing the facts from the Court.
The suit was opposed by the respondents on the ground that the earlier suit filed by Bhagwant Singh, their predecessor-in-interest, was decreed on 7.11.1983 against the State of Punjab wherein it was held that the State of Punjab had RSA 2310 of 2012(O&M) -2- nothing to do with the suit land. That litigation went upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court but the State of Punjab remained unsuccessful. Since that suit had been filed in the year 1971, the lease deed executed by the State of Punjab in favour of the appellant-plaintiff in the year 1972 was hit by the doctrine of lis- pendens.
Vide judgment dated 29.1.2007, the trial Court dismissed the present suit filed by the appellant. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant filed an appeal, which was, however, dismissed by the lower appellate Court on 16.4.2012. Hence, the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The only ground taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is that in the previous suit filed by Bhagwant Singh on 9.11.1971, the appellant was not a party. The said suit had been filed against the State of Punjab. The plaintiff therein had intentionally avoided impleading the appellant as a party- defendant in the suit despite the fact that he had been staying adjacent to the land in question and was very much aware of the construction of the college building by the appellant and never objected to the same. Infact, there was acquiescence between said Bhagwant Singh and the State of Punjab and the said suit filed by Bhagwant Singh was not seriously opposed by the State RSA 2310 of 2012(O&M) -3- of Punjab. Therefore, the decree obtained by Bhagwant Singh was collusive in nature.
In para 27 of the judgment passed by the lower appellate Court, it has been mentioned that the litigation initiated by Bhagwant Singh went upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court where the decree passed by the trial Court in favour of Bhagwant Singh was upheld and the execution proceedings were pending thereafter. In view of these facts, it cannot be held that there was any acquiescence between Bhagwant Singh and the State of Punjab or that the decree obtained by Bhagwant Singh against State of Punjab was collusive in nature.
The concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below are not liable to be interfered with in a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. None of the substantial question of law formulated by the appellant arise for determination. The appeal being devoid of any merit is, accordingly, dismissed.
( T.P.S. MANN )
July 05, 2012 JUDGE
ajay-1