Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1205 (MP)

RAVINDRA PRAKASH v. STATE OF M P

2009-10-21

P.K.JAISWAL, R.S.GARG

body2009
Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 10. 5. 2007 passed by the learned Fifth Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge, class I, Bhopal, in Civil Suit No. 142-A of 2007 rejecting the defendants/petitioners application filed under Order 14 Rule 5 C. P. C and Order 6 Rule 17 C. P. C have filed this writ petition. ( 2. ) THE checkered history made straight provides that the respondents no. 2 and 3 filed the suit in dispute in the Court of Xth Civil Judge, Class II, Bhopal against the State Government praying for the reliefs that they be declared owners of the property and injunction be given against the State Government and the other authorities not to disturb their possession or dispossess them. ( 3. ) THE present petitioners filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C. P. C with a submission that they are vitally interested in the outcome of the suit because the land in dispute was subject matter of the agricultural ceiling matter pending before the competent authority. The said application was allowed and the present petitioners were allowed to be joined as parties/defendants. ( 4. ) AFTER joining of the new defendants the said defendants filed their written statement and raised various pleadings. On the basis of the said pleadings the learned trial court framed the following three issues only: (1 ). Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the property and are Bhumi Swami/owner. (2 ). Whether the defendants were trying to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs. (3 ). Whether the suit was barred by limitation. After such issues were cast, the case was fixed for recording evidence the defendants/petitioners filed an application under Order 14 Rule 5 C. P. C proposing certain issues. Later they also filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the code of Civil Procedure. ( 5. ) APPLICATION filed under Order 14 Rule 5 C. P. C was rejected observing that the issues were cast by the court on 19. 3. 2007 in presence of the parties, therefore, such issues were not required to be cast. Similarly application under Order 6 Rule 17 C. P. C was rejected on 17. 5. ( 5. ) APPLICATION filed under Order 14 Rule 5 C. P. C was rejected observing that the issues were cast by the court on 19. 3. 2007 in presence of the parties, therefore, such issues were not required to be cast. Similarly application under Order 6 Rule 17 C. P. C was rejected on 17. 5. 2007 observing that in light of the amendment in Rule 17 of Order 6 C. P. C such amendment could not be allowed to be brought on record. ( 6. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that a perusal of the conduct of the original plaintiffs/respondents no. 2 and 3 would show that on one side placing reliance upon the principles of natural justice they challenged the orders earlier passed against them in the Court of the Additional Commissioner and succeeded in the matter but at the same time violating the said principles and with an intention to play fraud with the Court/state and the present petitioners they filed a suit and sought a decree of declaration and injunction. It is submitted by him that after the order has been passed by the Additional Commissioner in Case No. 483/a/ 2004-5 on 18. 4. 2007 the maintainability of the suit has become doubtful. For the amendment it is submitted that Order 6 Rule 17 C. P. C if is taken into its proper perspective it would clearly appear that after recording the reasons the Court handling the application can allow the same and the bar contained in Rule 17 is not absolute. It is also submitted by him that any decree if is passed in the Civil Suit, the same shall not bind the competent authority and the competent authority will have to be satisfied by the present plaintiffs/respondents no. 2 and 3 that they are shikmis. they have acquired Bhumi Swami rights and the land in dispute cannot be declared as surplus. ( 7. ) SHRI Hundikar, learned counsel for the original plaintiffs/respondents no. 2 and 3 however, submitted that the scope of the suit cannot be widened because in the present suit the plaintiffs are not seeking any relief against the petitioners. It is however, submitted by him that a declaration granted by the Court in favour of the plaintiffs shall bind the competent authority. ( 8. ) SHRI Nagrath, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent no. It is however, submitted by him that a declaration granted by the Court in favour of the plaintiffs shall bind the competent authority. ( 8. ) SHRI Nagrath, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent no. 1 however, submitted that any decree which may be passed in this suit shall not bind the competent authority because the competent authority will have to look into the merits of the matter and will have to record his own conclusion. ( 9. ) UNDISPUTEDLY the Additional Commissioner vide his order dated 18. 4. 2007 in case No. 483/a/2004-05 while setting aside the order dated 20. 11. 2001 passed by the Collector/competent authority in Ceiling Case No. 5/a-90/b-3/1974-1975 remanded the matter back to the Collector with a direction that after the draft statement/final statement are submitted by the respondents of that case, (Ravindra Prakash and Rajendra Kumar) appropriate opportunity of hearing be given to the present plaintiffs/respondents no. 2 and 3 and only thereafter final orders be passed. If such are the orders then obviously the respondents are required to appear before the competent authority and satisfy the authority that the land in dispute cannot be treated to be within the agricultural holdings of the present petitioners and cannot be declared surplus. It would be trite to say that any decree passed in a Civil Suit shall not bind the competent authority whether state/commissioner are party or not a party to the Civil Suit. True it is that the said decree may bind some of the Revenue Officers but shall not bind the competent authority which under the M. P. Ceiling on Agriculture Holding Act has to decide that whether the decree is valid or not and the decree has the binding effect or not. ( 10. ) THE question that in the proceedings of 1964 Raghuwardayal Saxena, predecessor in title of the petitioners, had made certain declarations into the status of the present plaintiffs however would not affect the jurisdiction of the competent authority. In any case after the order dated 18. 4. 2007 the question of maintainability of the suit will have to be decided by the Civil Court. In our opinion the issues proposed by the present petitioners are required to be cast and answered. ( 11. In any case after the order dated 18. 4. 2007 the question of maintainability of the suit will have to be decided by the Civil Court. In our opinion the issues proposed by the present petitioners are required to be cast and answered. ( 11. ) IN so far as application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C. P. C is concerned a perusal of the application would show that the petitioners were trying to bring on record the subsequent events which in fact are undisputed. The petitioners want to bring on record an order passed by the Additional Commissioner and the filing of another appeal. Such facts in our opinion are required to be brought on record to do complete justice to the parties and the plaintiffs cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own doings by saying that such facts are not required to be brought on record. ( 12. ) BOTH the orders passed by the learned Court below are quashed. The petition is allowed with costs quantified at Rs. 5000/- to be paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants in person before the trial Court. The payment of the cost shall be a condition precedent for proceeding further with the suit. Petition allowed.