Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 962 (JHR)

Ashok Kumar Singh v. Kanhaiya Lal Jalan

2015-08-13

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
ORDER : Aggrieved by order dated 23.09.2014 in Civil Misc. Case No. 95 of 2014 whereby, application under Section 24 CPC has been dismissed, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioner was defendant-tenant in Eviction Title Suit No.03 of 1997. The suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 27.06.2006. The suit was decreed both on the ground of default of payment in rent and personal necessity. In the eviction suit, the defendant admitted that he was inducted as a tenant by the plaintiff however, he raised a plea that the suit property is Khasmahal property, which belongs to the State. The defendant made an application in the trial court for deciding the issue whether the suit property is a Khasmahal property or not. The application was dismissed on 21.02.2004 against which, the defendant preferred W.P.(C) No.1381 of 2004. However, the writ petition was dismissed on 25.03.2004. Thereafter, the defendant filed an application under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for impleading the State as a party. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 05.08.2004, which was challenged by the defendant in W.P.(C) No.5298 of 2004. The writ petition was dismissed on 09.03.2005 holding that the trial court has rightly held that title cannot be adjudicated in a suit for eviction. Against the judgment and decree dated 28.06.2006, the petitioner preferred Title Appeal No.110 of 2006. In the pending appeal, the petitioner/appellant filed application under Section 151 CPC for calling for record of lease executed in the name of late Baijnath Jalan, who was the original plaintiff. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 13.05.2014. Earlier also, the petitioner has preferred application under Section 151 CPC raising the same plea, which was dismissed on 19.11.2013. The petitioner had also filed a petition under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, which was rejected vide order dated 14.12.2013. 3. On 10.08.2015, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that several applications were filed by the petitioner in Title Appeal No. 110 of 2006 however, the Appellate Court has not considered the same. For filing supplementary affidavit the matter was adjourned for today. Supplementary affidavit dated 12.08.2015 has been filed by the petitioner/appellant disclosing several applications filed by the petitioner including one under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC and another under Section 151 CPC however, no pending application has been indicated. For filing supplementary affidavit the matter was adjourned for today. Supplementary affidavit dated 12.08.2015 has been filed by the petitioner/appellant disclosing several applications filed by the petitioner including one under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC and another under Section 151 CPC however, no pending application has been indicated. From the materials brought on record, it appears that in title appeal the petitioner-tenant filed several applications and he approached this Court by filing different writ petitions including W.P.(C) No. 3355 of 2014 and W.P.(C) No. 3357 of 2014. The grievance raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the Appellate Court has not looked into merits of the matter. In the application under Section 24 CPC, the petitioner alleged that the Presiding Officer has not considered merit of the case and on several occasions, he observed that petitions filed by him would be rejected. It was further averred that the Presiding Officer is not considering the relevant provisions of law with respect to nature of the suit land being, Khasmahal land and the fraud committed by the plaintiff claiming the suit property. 4. The application under Section 24 CPC has been dismissed vide order dated 23.09.2014 holding that it is unfair to attribute such allegations to the Court. Merely because the applications filed by the petitioner have been rejected, it would not give an impression that justice would not be done. It is a matter of record that in W.P.(C) No.2191 of 2011, this Court issued a direction for disposal of title appeal within four months. In W.P.(C) No.5298 of 2004, this Court observed that the petitioner has filed petitions one after another in order to linger the disposal of the suit. In view of order dated 25.03.2004 in W.P.(C) No.1381 of 2004 whereby, the plea raised by the petitioner/defendant was rejected, the applications filed under Section 151 CPC and under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC must be held to be frivolous. Though the suit was decreed in the year, 2006 and this Court directed disposal of title appeal within four months, the appeal has remained pending for about 9 years. Considering the sequence of events and the manner in which the petitioner has filed applications one after another, I am of the opinion that the application filed under Section 24 CPC seeking transfer of Title Appeal No.110 of 2006 to another Court was frivolous. Considering the sequence of events and the manner in which the petitioner has filed applications one after another, I am of the opinion that the application filed under Section 24 CPC seeking transfer of Title Appeal No.110 of 2006 to another Court was frivolous. The petitioner has definitely misused the process of the court by filing frivolous applications. I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-, which shall be paid to the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority within four weeks. 5. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority for taking necessary steps, if cost of Rs.10,000/is not deposited by the petitioner within four weeks. Petition dismissed with cost.