Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 719 (JHR)

Manorma Singh v. Ramjhari Devi

2013-06-20

JAYA ROY, PRAKASH TATIA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. By Court Heard learned counsel for the appellant, ignoring the defects, in view of the urgency shown by the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that due to the reasons mentioned in the application being I.A. No. 330 of 2013, the appellant could not prefer Letters Patent Appeal and as such the delay may be condoned. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. I.A. No. 330 of 2013 stands disposed of. 4. Heard on the merits of the case. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that it is true that the writ petitioner respondent no.1 obtained a decree for eviction against the appellant in a title suit being Title Suit No.139 of 1987, obviously filed in the year 1987. The judgment passed in the suit was challenged by appellant in the appeal being Title Appeal No.94 of 2004 and that appeal was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 2nd January, 2008. Then the present appellant preferred Second Appeal being Second Appeal No. 51 of 2008, which was dismissed vide order dated 22.5.2009. Then the appellant filed a petition under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was also rejected and then the appellant approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.2603 of 2009, which was dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/vide order dated 28th January, 2010. Thereafter possession was delivered through the court in Execution Case No.6 of 2004 to the writ petitioner. The appellant in para6 of the Letters Patent Appeal, clearly admitted that writ petitioner submitted that the appellant was not objecting to the lawful enjoyment of the property of the writ petitioner respondent no.1. However, on query of the Court, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant is not obstructing in the property which is covered by the decree passed in Title Suit No.139 of 1987. 6. The learned Single Judge only passed the order that it is the duty of the police authorities to see that the order passed by the competent court are required to be implemented under the supervision and protection of the police authorities as and when required. 6. The learned Single Judge only passed the order that it is the duty of the police authorities to see that the order passed by the competent court are required to be implemented under the supervision and protection of the police authorities as and when required. The learned Single Judge also observed that in the present case specific direction has been given to the police authorities, however, the required police protection/assistance has not been given under the pretext that the proceedings are pending before the court below. Then, the learned Single Judge observed that now since the proceeding has been disposed of before the court below, necessary direction is required to be issued. Hence, direction has been issued by the learned Single Judge. 7. Inspite of obtaining a decree for possession in a suit filed as back as in the year 1987, it appears that the decree holder is not in position to enjoy the property fully. There appears to be obstruction by taking one pretext or another and here in this case, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the decree holderwrit petitionrespondent no.1 is exceeding the limits for which eviction decree was passed by the learned court below. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the facts in detail, which we have also referred in this order because of the reason that it may be clear that the relief has been sought by the writ petitioner in the writ petition only pertaining to the property which is covered by the decree passed in Title Suit no. 139 of 1987. Therefore, the appellant cannot have grievance because appellant's own case is that she is not obstructing any enjoyment of the property by respondent no.1decree holder of the Title Suit No.139 of 1987. Then, in that situation there was no reason for the appellant to have grievance against such direction because she is totally unconnected with the property for which decree was passed and for which property enjoyment the police aid has been given. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court( By us), rendered in the case of Ramdhani Prajapati & Ors. Vrs. M/s Feckon Construtions & Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2013(2)JLJR, 11. The facts of said case are entirely different. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court( By us), rendered in the case of Ramdhani Prajapati & Ors. Vrs. M/s Feckon Construtions & Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2013(2)JLJR, 11. The facts of said case are entirely different. In said case, when the matters were brought before the civil court in different suits at different times, one of the party tried to over reach the process of the court by taking help of the administrative authorities and, particularly, police authorities. Then, in that situation, this Court condemned the conduct of the person who by over reaching the process of the court approached authorities for getting the relief out of the court and, particularly, by over reaching the process of the court. The details facts of Ramdhani Prajapati's case(supra) are not necessary in the present case, because of the plain and simple reason that appellant herself clearly admitted that she has no concern with the property for which decree has been passed in Title Suit No.139 of 1987 and the Court's direction in writ petition is only to the extent of the property which was subject matter of the Title Suit No.139 of 1987. 9. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that this Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the appellant is also abuse of the process of the Court, but since the appellant is a lady as first indulgence, we are not imposing any cost and dismiss this appeal, at the stage of admission itself.