Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Shesh Bahadur Singh(D) Thr.Lrs vs Ram Das Singh(D) Thr. Lrs on 24 July, 2025
Bench: Sudhanshu Dhulia, Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE/INHERENT JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9673 OF 2013
SHESH BAHADUR SINGH(D) THR.LRS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
RAM DAS SINGH(D) THR. LRS. & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 211 OF 2022
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9673 OF 2013
ORDER
The matter relates to a dispute of an agricultural land which is situated in District Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh. The contesting claimants were one Basudev Singh, Sesh Bahadur Singh, both are represented through their legal heirs before this Court. Both the parties claim their right on the agriculture land in village Basti, Tappa – Nanaun, Paragana, Nizamabad P.O., Babu ki Basati, District Azamgarh, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2025.08.01 17:23:10 IST Uttar Pradesh. It is an undisputed fact that at the Reason: relevant point of time, notification was issued under 2 Section 4 of The Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 [in short, “Consolidation Act”] and consolidation proceedings were going on. In those proceedings, an order was passed in favour of the present appellant(s) on 23.07.1966. The respondents, who are before this Court, had taken this order in an appeal and, thereafter, in revision, they lost and ultimately filed a Writ Petition before the High Court, where their writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 28.07.1967. After losing from all the courts, Basudev Singh then filed a Civil Suit No. 260 of 1967 for cancellation of the order dated 20.05.1967 passed by the Deputy Director (Consolidation Authority). The grounds taken were that the order was obtained by fraud. For the reasons best known to the parties and which amazes us totally, is that both the parties during trial consented that the dispute will be resolved by arbitration. The matter was referred to three Arbitrators, who gave the Award in favour of the respondents and held that they were entitled to be the owners of the land in dispute. 3 In the meanwhile, issues were framed in the trial as to the very maintainability of the suit, which went in favour of the defendant(s) that the suit was not maintainable in view of the specific bar under Section 49 of the Consolidation Act. Section 49 reads as under:-
“Bar to civil Courts jurisdiction.
- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the declaration and adjudication of right of tenure-holder in respect of land lying in an area, for which a [notification] has been issued [under sub-section (2) of Section 4] or adjudication of any other right arising out of consolidation proceedings and in regard to which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act, shall be done in accordance with the provisions of this Act and no Civil or Revenue Court shall entertain any suit or proceeding with respect to rights in such land or with respect to any other matters for which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act :] 4 [Provided that nothing in this section shall preclude the Assistant Collector from initiating proceedings under Section 122-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 in respect of any land, possession over which has been delivered or deemed to be delivered to a Gaon Sabha under or in accordance with the provisions of this Act.]” Even on Res Judicata, a finding has already been given by a competent court of jurisdiction and therefore, the matter stands settled between the parties and cannot be agitated again. Against the order of the trial court, the plaintiff(s) (respondents herein) filed a First Appeal which was dismissed and consequently, they filed the Second Appeal, in which the following substantial question of law was framed :-
“…...one of the substantial questions of law which arises in this appeal is whether the suit could have been dismissed as not maintainable or without jurisdiction after the dispute in suit was referred by the court to 5 arbitration without the reference being superseded?” The High Court then referred to Sections 21 and 23 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which was applicable to the dispute at the relevant point of time. The said Sections are reproduced thus :-
“21. Parties to suit may apply for order of reference - Where in any suit all the parties interested agree that any matter in difference between them in the suit shall be referred to arbitration, they may at any time before judgment is pronounced apply in writing to the Court for an order of reference.
23. Order of reference - (I) The Court shall, by order, refer to the arbitrator the matter in difference which is required to determine, and shall in the order specify such time as it thinks reasonable for the making of the award.
(2) Where a matter is referred to arbitration, the Court shall not, save in the manner and to the extent provided in this Act, deal with such matter in the suit.” 6 The High Court was of the view that the trial court as well as the First Appellate Court had decided the case pending decision in the Arbitration Proceedings and irrespective of the decision therein, which is clearly violative of Section 23(2) of the Arbitration Act and therefore, the decisions of the trial court and the appellate court cannot be sustained. Hence, these matters are remanded to the trial court for a fresh consideration on objections whether the suit itself was maintainable or not.
At this juncture, we may also note that what the respondents were doing was not merely making a prayer in the suit for cancellation of the order passed in the Consolidation proceedings but in disguise were also seeking an order in a civil suit for setting aside the order of the High Court, which gave its seal of approval to the orders were passed during the Consolidation proceedings.
We are of the view that a patent error has been committed in this case inasmuch as there was no occasion for referring the matter for arbitration in a suit 7 which itself was not maintainable, not only in view of Section 49 of the Consolidation Act, which bars filing of such a suit, but more importantly, because of the Res Judicata as the findings of a competent court of jurisdiction on the same dispute was already there, in which both the parties, which are now the parties in the suit, were also the same parties. Under these circumstances, the order of the High Court dated 26.08.2011 passed in Second Appeal No.1593 of 1976 cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. We make it clear that both the parties shall abide by the orders passed in the Consolidation Proceedings and act accordingly. In view of above, the appeal is allowed.
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 211 OF 2022 In this contempt petition, notice has not been issued so far. Considering that the main matter has now been decided and also considering that most of the alleged offences are also hit by Section 20 of the 8 Contempt of Courts Act, we see no occasion to continue with this contempt petition. The contempt petition is hereby closed.
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
………........................J. [ SUDHANSHU DHULIA ] .......…………..............J. [ ARAVIND KUMAR ] New Delhi;
JULY 24, 2025.
9
ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.8 SECTION III-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 9673/2013
SHESH BAHADUR SINGH(D) THR.LRS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
RAM DAS SINGH(D) THR. LRS. & ORS. Respondent(s)
IA No. 90790/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 90786/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/ FACTS/ANNEXURES WITH CONMT.PET.(C) No. 211/2022 in C.A. No. 9673/2013 (III-A) IA No. 91693/2022 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS IA No. 89733/2022 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS IA No. 28958/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 89735/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 28959/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. Date : 24-07-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anilendra Pandey, AOR Mr. Kamlesh Upadhyay, Adv.
Ms. Aarati Sah, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jay Kishor Singh, AOR Mr. K. K. Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Dharmendra Kumar, Adv.
Mr. B. D. Sharma, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The Civil Appeal is allowed and contempt petition is closed in terms of the signed order.
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (Signed order is placed on the file)