JUDGMENT D. S. Sinha, J. 1. By means of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the plaint of suit no. 102 of 1987 filed by Smt. Meera Dutta, the opposite party no. 2, along with the proceedings of the suit, pending in the court of Munsif West, Allahabad. The suit is for declaration that she is co-tenant of house no. 673, Colonelganj, Allahabad, hereinafter called the 'disputed house', and for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from dispossessing her and her dependents from the aforesaid house of which the petitioner is owner-landlord, in pursuance of the decree dated 19th November, 1982 passed by the Judge, Small Causes, Allahabad, in Original suit No. 50 of 1981, Sri Gulab Chand v. Subhash Chandra Mittra and others. 2. The events giving rise to the instant petition are as follows : The petitioner filed in the court of Judge, Small Causes, Allahabad, suit no. 50 of 1981 against opposite parties nos. 3, 4 and 5 for their ejectment from disputed house. This suit was decreed on 18th November, 1982 and opposite parties nos. 3 to 5 were directed to vacate the disputed house within a month from the date of the decree. The opposite parties nos. 3 to 5 challenged the decree dated 18th November, 1982 by means of a revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, before the District Judge, Allahabad. The revision was, however, transferred to the court of 5th Additional District Judge, Allahabad for hearing and disposal who dismissed the revision and upheld the decree passed by the Judge, Small Causes, Allahabad, for ejectment of the opposite parties nos. 3 to 4 by means of his judgment and order dated 11th March, 1983. Thereafter the opposite parties nos. 3 to 5 approached this Court through Misc. Writ Petition no. 4419 of 1983 questioning the legality of the two judgments and order dated 18th November, 1982 and 11th March, 1983 passed by the Judge Small Causes, Allahabad and the 5th Addl. District Judge, Allahabad respectively. This petition remained pending for a period of about four years and during this period the ejectment of the opposite parties nos. 3 to 5 remained stayed under orders of this Court. District Judge, Allahabad respectively. This petition remained pending for a period of about four years and during this period the ejectment of the opposite parties nos. 3 to 5 remained stayed under orders of this Court. Eventually the writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 10th February, 1987. While disposing of the petition this Court granted time to the opposite parties nos. 3 to 5 for vacating the disputed house till 31st August, 1987 subject to the condition that within two weeks the said opposite parties filed a joint affidavit containing their personal undertaking to handover peaceful possession of the disputed house to the petitioner on or before 31st August, 1987 and further that they made payment of damages for the period upto 31st August, 1987 within one month. The Court clarified that in case of default the petitioner would be entitled to evict the opposite parties nos. 3 to 5 forthwith. It appears that the opposite parties nos. 3 to 5 had sensed that their petition, challenging the ejectment, might fail and, as such, before the writ petition was disposed of they set up Smt. Meera Dutta, the opposite party no. 2, who filed in the court of Munsif West, Allahabad suit no. 102 of 1987, Meera Dutta v. Gulab Chand, for declaration that she was co-tenant in the disputed house and for injunction against the petitioner restraining him from dispossessing her and her dependents therefrom. In this suit the opposite party no. 2 made an application for ad interim order staying further proceedings of Execution Case no. 61 of 1983 which were initiated by the petitioner for the purpose of enforcing the decree of ejectment against the opposite parties nos. 3 to 5. On 5th February, 1987 the learned Munsif West, Allahabad, passed the following order : " Issue notice to the defendant fixing 15-2-1987 for objection and disposal. The purpose of the suit will be frustrated if the injunction is not granted exparte. Hence the parties are directed to maintain status quo till 16-2-1987. The plaintiff shall comply the Order 39 rule 3-A and B, CPC and shall file affidavit to this effect by tomorrow. Sd/Illegible Munsif West, Allahabad. " 3. The opposite parties nos. The purpose of the suit will be frustrated if the injunction is not granted exparte. Hence the parties are directed to maintain status quo till 16-2-1987. The plaintiff shall comply the Order 39 rule 3-A and B, CPC and shall file affidavit to this effect by tomorrow. Sd/Illegible Munsif West, Allahabad. " 3. The opposite parties nos. 3 to 5 felt secured on account of the above order of the learned Munsif dated 5th February, 1987 and they did not comply with the terms and conditions imposed upon them by this Court while disposing of the writ petition no. 4419 of 1983 on 10th February 1987. 4. The petitioner asserts on account of the ad interim order dated 5th February 1987, passed by the learned Munsif West, Allahabad, the Execution Court is not going to execute the ejectment decree against the opposite parties nos. 3 to 5 which has been affirmed right upto this Court. Further assertion of the petitioner is that Suit no. 102 of 1987 has been filed by the opposite party no. 2 only with a view to obstruct the execution of the ejectment decree against the opposite parties nos. 3 to 5 at their behest and it is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. It is asserted by the petitioner that the opposite party no. 2 has been living in Kanpur and does not reside in the disputed house at Allahabad. The opposite party no. 2 has put in appearance and filed her counter-affidavit. 5. The case of the opposite party no. 2, as it emerges from her pleadings contained in the impugned plaint of suit no. 102 of 1987 and the counter-affidavit filed in this Court, is that she is the daughter of late Sri Bhupendra Nath Mittra, who was the original tenant in the disputed house. Sri Bhupendra Nath Mittra died on 7th June, 1968 leaving behind his wife, Smt. Malti Mittra, two sons Subhash Chandra Mittra and Daleep Mittra and three unmarried daughters Smt. Meera Dutta, Smt. Jotishna and Smt, Pratima Dutta as his legal heirs. Smt. Meera Dutta, Subhash Chandra Mittra, Dalip Kumar Mittra and Smt. Malti Mittra figure in this petition as opposite parties nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively. According to the opposite party no. Smt. Meera Dutta, Subhash Chandra Mittra, Dalip Kumar Mittra and Smt. Malti Mittra figure in this petition as opposite parties nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively. According to the opposite party no. 2, the family of late Sri Bhupendra Nath Mittra was a joint Hindu family and after his death the tenancy was inherited by his aforesaid heirs jointly and they became co-tenant in the disputed house. 6. The opposite party no. 2 asserts that she has always been residing in the disputed house since the time of her father, notwithstanding her marriage, as her relations with her husband were strained According to her she has been residing in the house along with her two sons as dependent of her father Sri Bhupendra Nath Mittra. She alleges that she never relinquished her right as a co-tenant of the disputed house and has although been in possession in that capacity. The opposite party 2 claims that it was only on 25-1-1987 she was informed by her brother Sri Subhash Chandra Mittra, the opposite party no. 3, that the petitioner wanted to take possession of the house by evicting her without any lawful order. She also alleges mala fide on the part of her brothers and mother and pleads their collusion with petitioner to deprive her of the alleged legal right as co-tenant of the disputed house. She further contends that her brothers and mother did not contest the suit No. 50 of 1981 properly. On these averments the opposite party no. 2 suggests that the decree of ejectment dated 18th November, 1982 is a nullity. 7. The assertion of the opposite party no. 2 that at the time of death of Sri Bhupendra Nath Mittra on 7th June, 1968 his daughters, including the opposite party no. 2, were unmarried has been denied by the petitioner in his rejoinder-affidavit. The petitioner asserts that the three daughters of Sri Bhupendra Nath Mittra, including the opposite party no. 2, were already married on 7th June, 1968, when Sri Bhupendra Nath Mittra died and that they had been living in the houses of their husbands. No right of any kind in respect of the disputed house, therefore, devolved on them. 8. Annexure V to the petition is copy of the impugned plaint of suit no. 102 of 1987 filed by the opposite party no. No right of any kind in respect of the disputed house, therefore, devolved on them. 8. Annexure V to the petition is copy of the impugned plaint of suit no. 102 of 1987 filed by the opposite party no. 2 and in paragraph 6 thereof she alleges that "the plaintiff has always been residing in the premises in dispute since the time of her father. Even after her marriage her relation with her husband were strained and she is residing along with her father as his dependent. The sons of the plaintiff are also residing in the disputed premises. The plaintiff has never abandoned or relinquished her right as a co-tenant and continued to be co-tenant till today. " In paragraph 8 of the plaint, the opposite party no. 2 pleads that "on 25-1-1987 she was informed by her brother Sri Subhash Chandra Mittra that the defendant wants to take possession of the tenanted portion by evicting the plaintiff without any lawful order. " 9. Further pleading of the opposite party no. 2 in paragraph 9 of the plaint is " that on further enquiry, it was revealed...that the defendant had filed suit no. 50 of 1981 against the brothers.........and her mother.........without impleading the plaintiff for recovery of rent and ejectment. It also came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that defendant had obtained eviction order against only three co-tenants, namely, Subhash Chand Mittra, Dalip Kumar Mittra and Smt. Malti Mittra. The plaintiff also suspect malafides on the part of her brothers and mother to deprive her of the legal rights, because her brothers and mother have colluded with the defendant and have not filed their written statements in Suit no. 50 of 1981 nor contest the case properly. " 10. According to the pleading in paragraph 6 of her impugned plaint the opposite party no. 2 was married in the life time of her father but according to the averments contained in paragraph 3 of her counter affidavit filed before this Court in the instant petition " at the time of the death of Sri Bhupendra Nath Mittra opposite party no. 2 and her two sisters were unmarried daughters of original tenant Sri Bhupendra Nath Mittra.........". In paragraph 21 of the said counter affidavit it is reiterated that the "opposite party no. 2 and her two sisters were unmarried daughters of original tenant Sri Bhupendra Nath Mittra.........". In paragraph 21 of the said counter affidavit it is reiterated that the "opposite party no. 2 and her two sisters were unmarried daughters at the time of death of original tenant Sri B. N. Mittra." These pleadings obviously contradict each other. The opposite party no 2 suggests her ignorance about the suit no. 50 of 1981 and the decree of ejectment passed therein till 25-1-1987 when, according to the plea in paragraph 8 of the plaint, her brother Sri Subhash Chandra Mittra, the opposite party no. 3, informed her of the impending eviction. If the opposite party no. 2, who appears to be educated and literate, has really been residing in the disputed house, as she alleges, it is difficult to believe that she remained ignorant of the legal battle which commenced in the year 1981 until her brother informed her on 25th January, 1987. Either she has not been residing in the disputed house or if she has been residing there she must nave been fully conversant with proceedings of the suit and deliberately kept quiet till February. 1987 when she filed her suit giving rise to the instant petition. Further, on one hand she accuses her brothers and mother of collusion with the petitioner and alleges that they neither filed their written statements in suit no. 50 of 1981 nor they contested the case properly and on the other hand she asserts that information about the said suit and threatened eviction was given by one of the brothers, namely, Subhash Chandra Mittra. If there was any collusion as asserted by the opposite party no. 2 there was no occasion for the said brother to inform her about the ejectment proceedings. 11. There is yet another significant aspect worthy of notice. On 10th February, 1987 this Court granted time to opposite parties nos. 3 to 5 for vacating the disputed house till 31st August, 1987 provided within two weeks the said opposite parties filed joint affidavit containing their personal undertaking and hand over the possession of the disputed house to the petitioner on or before 31st August, 1987 and also made payment of damages for use of the disputed premises upto 31-8-1967. The said order of this Court stipulates forthwith eviction of the opposite parties nos. 3 to 5 in case of default. The said order of this Court stipulates forthwith eviction of the opposite parties nos. 3 to 5 in case of default. The opposite parties nos. 3 to 5 have not complied with any of the conditions imposed by this Court vide order dated 10-2-1987. Presumably, they felt secured by the initiation of the proceedings in suit no. 102 of 1987 instituted by the opposite party no. 2 in the court of Munsif, Allahabad and the injunction order dated 5th February, 1987 passed therein. 12. The foregoing discussion leaves no room for doubt that the opposite party no. 2 has no right qua disputed house and is in collusion with the opposite parties nos. 3 to 5 that she has filed the suit in question at the behest of the opposite parties nos. 3 to 5 with an oblique design to obstruct their lawful eviction that her pleadings set up in the plaint are frivolous and vexatious and, finally, that if the proceedings emanating from such eminently bogus pleadings are allowed to go on it would be grossest abuse of the process of court resulting in destruction of the credibility of judicial system itself. Where it is established that the litigation is sham, illusory, collusive and inspired by nefarious and vexatious design courts not only have jurisdiction but owe a duty to throttle such litigation as the threshold. In Prem Shankar Tripathi v. 1st Additional District Judge, Allahabad, 1986 AWC 925 this court, in almost similar circumstances, quashed the plaint of a suit exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India suo motu. 13. In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed with cost which is quantified at Rs. 1000/- only and shall be paid to the petitioner by the opposite party no. 2 within a month from today. The plaint of suit No. 102 of 1987, instituted by Smt. Meera Dutta, the opposite party no. 2, pending in the court of Munsif West, Allahabad, together with the proceedings arising from and relating thereto including the order/orders passed therein are quashed. Petition allowed.