Punjab-Haryana High Court
Narinder Singh vs Gram Panchayat, Talwandi Rai Dadu And ... on 19 December, 2014
CR No.181 of 2014 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No.181 of 2014 (O&M).
Decided on:-December 19th, 2014.
Narinder Singh. .........Petitioner.
Versus
Gram Panchayat, village Talwandi Rai Dadu and others
.........Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON.
*****
Argued by:- Mr. R.D. Bawa, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. M.S. Bhatti, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
Respondent No.2 ex-parte.
Mr. Ajaib Singh, Addl. A.G. Punjab
for respondents No.3 and 4.
Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.
This civil revision petition is directed against order dated 7.12.2013 (Annexure P-12) of the lower court vide which application (Annexure P-9) of the applicant-defendant No.4 Narinder Singh, petitioner herein, under Section 10 read with Section 151 CPC for stay of the suit, was dismissed.
YAG DUTT 2014.12.19 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR No.181 of 2014 -2-2. Hearing has been provided to the counsel for the parties while going through the paper book.
3. Before adjudicating rival claims of the parties in this revision petition, it would be appropriate to recapitulate the facts. There was another litigation wherein defendant No.4 Narinder Singh, petitioner herein, was a party. The said suit was decided on 22.9.1987. First appeal against that judgment was decided on 23.8.1989. Even a Civil Writ Petition No.16335 of 1996 having connection with the said matter was admitted on 28.7.1997. Orders dated 11.8.1998, 14.12.2004 and of 8.8.2009 were also passed and were referred to before the lower court by counsel for the applicant- defendant No.4 to buttress his claim that status-quo regarding possession was ordered to be maintained regarding the suit land and appeal filed by both the parties is pending before this Court. In short, it is claimed that since the matter is pending before this Court in the two other litigations, the fresh suit should be stayed.
4. In fact, in the present suit, entries in the revenue record have been challenged including mutation No.734. It is, thus, evidently clear that the lis in litigation in the present suit is entirely different from the earlier litigation. Merely because earlier matter is pending adjudication before this Court ipso facto is no ground to stay proceedings of the fresh suit filed by the respondent on entirely different facts and circumstances. The lower court has very elaborately discussed each and every aspect and has found that the earlier judgment of 22.9.1987 had been passed in favour of the present petitioner, the then plaintiff of a suit filed by him for seeking a decree of permanent injunction against Pritam Singh whereafter appeal preferred by said Pritam Singh against the said judgment, was dismissed. In short, the lower court had come to a firm finding that the parties as also subject matter of the litigation in the earlier suit was not similar to the present case.
YAG DUTT 2014.12.19 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR No.181 of 2014 -3-5. Similarly, matter in dispute in CWP No.16335 of 1996 filed by the Gram Panchayat against the Custodian General, Punjab and others with respect to its orders dated 11.6.1996 passed therein has also been discussed by the lower court in the impugned order. The lower court has come to a definite finding in the impugned order dated 7.12.2013 (Annexure P-12), relevant part of which is reproduced as under:
"But the subject matter in the above writ petition and parties are also not similar to the present case. Further regarding order dated 14.12.2004 passed in appeal U/S 13 of Punjab Land Revenue Act filed by plaintiff Gram Panchayat against Union of India & Narinder Singh, this Court is of the view that through the above appeal, order dated 6.11.96 was challenged and that appeal has been dismissed, meaning thereby that appeal has been disposed of by learned SDM, Amritsar-I and not pending. Further regarding the order dated 8.8.2009 passed by the Court of Smt. Sonia Kinra, the then Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ajnala, this Court is of the view that the subject matter of that case was also not similar to the present case."
6. Claim of the petitioner herein, in support of his application under Section 10 CPC, for reversal of the impugned order is that the matter in litigation in all the three proceedings is the same and the present suit requires to be stayed. When the impugned order (Annexure P-12) transparently makes it clear that the present suit is having no direct and substantial connection with the litigation in the earlier two proceedings, the impugned order does not suffer from any factual or legal error.
7. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances as mentioned earlier, application (Annexure P-9) under Section 10 read with Section 151 CPC for stay of the freshly instituted suit was rightly dismissed by the lower court vide impugned order dated 7.12.2013 (Annexure P-12).
8. Sequelly, no ground to interfere with the impugned order is YAG DUTT 2014.12.19 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR No.181 of 2014 -4- made out. Affirming the impugned order, this petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.
9. As the suit has become old, it be decided by the lower court within six months, even by taking day to day proceedings, if found necessary, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
10. It is, however, made clear that while proceeding with the present litigation, the lower court would go through the pleadings as also the orders passed therein before making a final decision in the present litigation and may take help of provisions of Order X Rule 13 CPC for perusal and appreciation of record of the earlier two litigations referred to in the application under Section 10 read with Section 151 CPC of the present petitioner.
(Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon)
th
December 19 , 2014 Judge
'Yag Dutt'
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes YAG DUTT 2014.12.19 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document