Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. In the matter where sale deed was executed on 18th Dec., 1978 an eviction decree was passed in favour of the purchasers by this Court in S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 166/1990 on 16th Nov., 1990 and during the pendency of Civil Original Suit No. 46/2001 (3/99) (42/96) filed in the year 1996 a public interest litigation was filed for the virtually same relief and which was dismissed by this Court with cost of Rs. 10,000/-in the year 1999 and SLP was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the year 2000 and when plaintiff's-appellant's suit was dismissed as frivolous litigation by the trial court on 2.8.2002 then an application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC in the execution case No. 6/2001 was filed on 10th May, 2005 by the persons Inder Mal, Shanker Lal and Navneet. Though the application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC is in individual names but application for interim relief under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC read with Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC is in the name of Temple has been filed by the same objectors. The said application was dismissed by the executing court by order dated 12th May, 2005. This dismissal of the application has not been challenged and, therefore, dismissal of application filed under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC become final. Then another application just after four days, under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC has been filed again in the name of Mandir Thakurji Shri Mathuradassji, Chota Bhandar, Kakroli but through Vinod Sanadhaya. This application was dismissed by the executing court on 19th May, 2005, therefore, to challenge the order dated 19th May, 2005 S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 232/2005 has been preferred in the name of temple Thakur Ji Shri Mathuradassji through Vinod Sanadhya.

15. Not taking lesson from above observations of this Court, the appellant preferred special leave to petition No. 4289/2000 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 27.2.2000 with observation that it is not a public interest litigation at all and the order of the High Court is entirely justified.... Thereafter, the trial court dismissed the suit as absolutely frivolous and amounting to abuse of process of court on 2.8.2002. Then subsequent events happened as an application in the name of Temple under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC was submitted in the trial court on 10th May, 2005 by one Indermal joining Shanker lal and Navneet also as party in the said application. This application was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 12th May, 2005 by writing order on the back of the application itself. The record of the execution as well as application filed under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC on 10th May, 2005 reveal that the specific plea was taken by the objectors that the tenants were fraudulently forced to believe that the decree holder purchased the suit property and the tenants believed the same because of the notice given by the decree holder-purchasers and notice given on behalf of the temple who is perpetual minor. Substantially, the same issue was raised about the competence of the vendor in selling the property in dispute in the application filed under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC and that plea has been rejected in view of the order of the executing court dated 12th May, 2005 and it has attained finality. There is reference of notices in application filed on 10th May, 2005 , copy of which plaintiff want to place on record of the first appeal under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. However, detail particulars of notices are not given but still fact is clear that the reference of notice in application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC is of the same notice which are referred in the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC filed by the appellants. Further, subsequent event is that in the name of Mandir Thakurji Shri Mathuradassji, Chota Bhandar, Kakroli Shri Vinod Sanadhaya one more application has been submitted under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC on 15th May, 2005 in the executing Court. This application is through one Vinod Sanadhya. In this application also it has been alleged that the tenants have been mislead to believe that the decree holder purchased the property and on this fraudulent representation, the tenants started giving rent to the decree holders and believed the decree holders to be their landlords. In this application also there is reference of same notices given by the erstwhile owner of the property and the purchasers to the tenants. It has also been stated how Shri Krishan Kumar was owner of the property has not been mentioned in the sale deed executed in favour of decree holder and, therefore, decree cannot be executed. It appears from the facts prior to filing of the suit and its subsequent conduct of the parties to the suit that sole aim and object of the plaintiffs is to see that the decree holder should not get fruits of the decree in spite of the fact that Division Bench of this Court clearly held that there is force in the contention of two of the decree holders that in fact, the petitioner Ishwar Chand demanded money from the decree holders apparently, for not putting the hindrance in the execution of the decree and that allegation appeared to be probable. The Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the judgment of this Court passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 1323/1996 on merits as admitted by the appellants in para No. 7 of their memo of appeal and copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP dated 27.3.2000 is on record of the trial court. In addition to the reasons given by the trial court in its order rejecting the suit of the plaintiff, this Court is of the view that the conduct of Ishwar Chand from beginning clearly demonstrates that he with ulterior motive as observed by this Court had only one intention that the decree holders may not get the full fruits of the decree in spite of the fact that they not only obtain the decree for eviction of tenants from High Court as back as on 16th Nov., 1990, but even donated a school building to the State. Admittedly, in the Civil Original Suit No. 29/81 the State and its departments admitted themselves to be the tenant of the purchasers and that position continued for about almost 15 years. As per admission of the plaintiffs- appellants all the tenants started paying rent to respondent Nos. 1 to 6 which may be since 1981. Thereafter, the judgment-debtors-tenants admitted in their compromise in court that they will hand over the possession of the suit premises to the decree holders then said Ishwar Chand become proclaimed representative of the appellant No. 1temple in spite of the fact that in the Rajasthan there is specific Act known as Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (for short the Act of 1959) under which one can seek permission to file suit for various reliefs with respect to the trust and its management which may include the management of the trust property, removal of trustees etc. The permission can be sought under the Act of 1959 for institution of suit for specific directions. Nothing has been said in the entire plaint why the sale deed of 1978 has not been challenged by either trustees or temple or its worshipers and even by the plaintiffs for such a long period of about 18 years and decree was passed by the High Court for eviction of tenants in the year 1999. It appears that one after another person declared himself to be guardian of Temple to abuse the law and process of court which is clear from the timings on which actions were taken of filing PIL, suit, other objections in execution at various times.

18. In view of the above reasons the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff by the trial court by the judgment/order is fully legal and justified in the facts of the case. There is nom merit in S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 239/2002 and is, therefore, dismissed with costs.

19. S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 232/2005 can be dismissed only on the ground that successive application based on the same facts and for the same relief could not have been entertained by the executing court. Subsequently filed application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC is in the name of the same temple. The executing court was right in holding that subsequently filed application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC could not have been entertained in view of the earlier order dated 12th May, 2005. On merits also, I do not find any substance in the allegations levelled by the objectors under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC because of the reason that he failed to produce any material before the executing court for holding any inquiry and in a case where execution of the decree is resisted then the objector is required to place on record the sufficient material on the basis of which he can claim for entertaining his application and when application to object the execution of decree is filed. Without sufficient facts and without support of any material or proof, the executing court can be summarily dismissed the application. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 232/2005 and the same is also hereby dismissed.