Allahabad High Court
Satya Narain vs Bali Ram Pandey & Ors. on 19 January, 2010
Bench: Ashok Bhushan, Virendra Singh
Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 71009 of 2009 Petitioner :- Satya Narain Respondent :- Bali Ram Pandey & Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Ram Milan Mishra Respondent Counsel :- Sudhanshu Srivastava Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J.
Hon'ble Virendra Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava appearing for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3.
An application has been filed by the petitioner praying for amendment of the writ petition with the prayer to quash the plaint filed in OS No. 1054/2009 and also for quashing the order passed by the Trial Court granting interim injunction.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Suit No. 395/1968 was filed by the predecessor-in-Interest of the respondents for permanent injunction with regard to agricultural land which suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. The First Appellate Court vide its judgement and decree dated 16.07.1980 allowed the appeal against which Second Appeal No. 2478/1980 was filed by the petitioner Satya Narain in this court, which Second Appeal was ultimately allowed by judgement and order dated 07.08.2007, holding that the suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant was barred and not maintainable against which order, the respondents filed Special Leave to Appeal in the Supreme Court which was dismissed on 27.07.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the Special Leave to Appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court, another suit being Suit No. 1054/2009 was filed by the respondents in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division in August 2009. In the said suit, learned counsel submits that the plaintiff had not disclosed about the litigation which went up to the Supreme Court and has again prayed permanent injunction of the same land.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the filing of the second Suit No. 1054/2009 is abuse of the process of the Court and the respondents having lost up to the Supreme Court, could not again file another suit and the plaint of Suit No. 1054/2009 deserves to be quashed by this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel submits that the Trial Court also granted an interim injunction on 22.08.2009 which order has also been prayed to be quashed.
Sri B.P. SIngh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2, submits that the suit which has been filed in the year 2009 is on different cause of action. He submits that the defendants have been in possession. He also refers to an ex parte decree granted in favour of the defendant under Section 229B of the UPZA & LR Act dated 11.07.1996. He however prays for time to file a detailed counter affidavit bringing all judgements, orders and materials on record.
Considering the submissions made by leaned counsel for the parties, we are prima facie satisfied that the question needs to be gone into as to whether Suit No. 1054/2009 is abuse of the process of court or can be permitted to continue engaging the parties again in litigation.
As prayed, let a counter affidavit be filed within three weeks.
List this writ petition on 22.02.2010.
Rejoinder affidavit be also filed before the date fixed.
Looking to the nature of the dispute and the issues raised in the writ petition, it is observed that the writ petition itself may be finally disposed of on the next date.
Order Date :- 19.1.2010 Jaideep/-