Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2073 (PAT)

Raman Kumar v. Anup Kumar Saran

2011-09-27

MUNGESHWAR SAHOO

body2011
ORDER I have heard Mr. Vijay Kumar on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Anish Chandra Sinha on behalf of the respondent. 2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant-petitioner against the order dated 08.10.2009 passed by execution Munsif, Muzaffarpur in Title Suit No.218 of 1990 whereby the learned Court below closed the evidence of the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only on one date when the petitioner did not appear for his cross-examination due to his illness, the learned Court below arbitrarily closed the evidence of the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the petitioner be granted a chance for his cross-examination. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the plaintiff-respondent filed the suit for eviction of the petitioner. Because of non-compliance of the order passed by the trial Court as well as by this High Court under Section 15 of the B.B.C. Act directing him to deposit arrears of rent and current rent, the defence of the petitioner has been struck off. While dismissing the civil revision application, this Court directed the trial Court to dispose of the eviction suit preferable within the period of 6 months because the suit is of the year 1990. In the said order, this Court also directed the petitioner to deposit the arrears and current rent but the petitioner did not comply the said order. The learned counsel further submitted that since 1990, the petitioner is not paying any rent and is residing in suit premises. He also suppressed all these facts in the writ application and, therefore, he approached this Court with unclean hand. Subsequently, the petitioner filed recall application against the order impugned which was also rejected by the Court below subsequently on 02.11.2009 and the petitioner did not challenge the said order. In such circumstances, the learned Court below has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner. 5. It is admitted that the suit is eviction suit of the year 1990. The defendant-petitioner denied relationship with landlord and tenant. Admittedly, an application under Section 15 of the B.B.C. Act was filed by the plaintiff-respondent which was allowed by the trial Court finding prima facie relationship of landlord and tenant. 5. It is admitted that the suit is eviction suit of the year 1990. The defendant-petitioner denied relationship with landlord and tenant. Admittedly, an application under Section 15 of the B.B.C. Act was filed by the plaintiff-respondent which was allowed by the trial Court finding prima facie relationship of landlord and tenant. The petitioner challenged the said order before this Court in civil revision No.1308 of 2008 which was dismissed on 19.08.2008 and direction was given to the petitioner to deposit arrears and current rent and the learned Court below was directed to dispose of the suit within 6 months. The petitioner did not comply the said order and tried to delay the matter by filing application for time. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the plaintiff-respondent wherein it is stated that at paragraph 8 and 11 of the written statement, the petitioner has admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant. The plaintiff-respondent filed Title Suit No.85 of 1994 wherein the vendor of this petitioner was party. That suit was for declaration of title which was decreed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. The present petitioner is claiming on the basis of sale deed from the defendant of title suit No.85 of 1994 which has already been decided in favour of the respondent of this application. 7. In view of the above facts, it is clear that the petitioner suppressed all these material facts in the writ application. The statements made in the counter affidavit have not been denied by the petitioner. In fact at the time of argument, the facts were admitted by the petitioner. Therefore, it is admitted fact that in spite of the trial Court’s direction and also direction of this Court to pay the arrears of rent and current rent, the petitioner did not comply the same. It is well settled that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be allowed to be invoked by a person who try to defy the orders of the competent Courts like the trial Court and the High Court. It is also well settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a decision reported in 2010 (8) Supreme Court cases 329, Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. It is also well settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a decision reported in 2010 (8) Supreme Court cases 329, Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil that exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 is entirely discretionary and no person can claim it as a matter of right. 8. In 2010 (9) Supreme Court cases 385, Jai Singh & Ors Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr., the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised like “bull in a China shop” to correct all errors of Court acting within limits of its jurisdiction. 9. In view of my above discussion and in view of above well settled principle of law, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order which has now merged in subsequent order dated 02.11.2009 which has not been challenged. Therefore, this writ application is dismissed.