Gautam Parkash vs Rakesh Kumar and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—Plaintiff Gautam Parkash has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning judgment and decree dated 5.9.2011 Annexure P/10 passed by the trial court thereby dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-petitioner filed u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Admittedly, plaintiff was tenant in the disputed property under Banarsi Dass since deceased-predecessor of defendants/respondents. The plaintiff had placed his khokha there.

Case of the plaintiff is that on 27.1.2006, the defendants with the help of some other persons tried to take forcible possession of the suit property and therefore, dharna was held in front of the suit property and it was reported in newspapers. However, on 28.1.2006, the defendants got the plaintiff arrested by police of Police Station City Sunam and in the absence of the plaintiff, the defendants took forcible possession of the suit property. Accordingly, plaintiff filed suit for possession of the suit property.

The defendants inter alia pleaded that the disputed property was not being used for about 20/22 years. The plaintiff on 27.1.2006 effected compromise with attorney of the defendants and vacated the suit property. The plaintiff was paid Rs. 1 lac at that time and another amount of Rs. 1 lac was agreed to be paid on 30.1.2006 but was paid on 15.2.2006 for which separate receipt was executed. The plaintiff also affirmed affidavit dated 30.1.2006 regarding the compromise, besides written compromise dated 27.1.2006.

Learned trial court has dismissed the plaintiff''s suit. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed this revision petition to challenge judgment and decree of the trial court.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file including file of the trial court with their assistance.

The plaintiff in the witness box admitted his signatures on compromise dated 27.1.2006 Ex. D6, affidavit dated 30.1.2006 Ex. D7 and receipt dated 15.2.2006 Ex. D8. The defendants have also proved documents Ex. D6 and Ex. D8 by examining Sumer Garg witness of the said documents and by examining Mr. Joginder Kumar Singla, Notary who attested affidavit Ex. D7 and who also proved entry Ex. D9 of the said affidavit in his register. The said entry was also bearing signatures of the plaintiff.

In view of all the aforesaid documents, admittedly bearing signatures of the plaintiff, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant revision petition. Bare perusal of the said documents, which have also been proved by defendants by cogent evidence, reveals that the plaintiff voluntarily vacated the suit property on 27.1.2006 for which he received Rs. 1 lac on that date and received another amount of Rs. 1 lac on 15.2.2006, but subsequently, the plaintiff became dishonest and filed this suit. In the plaint, the plaintiff has not even referred to or challenged the aforesaid documents in any manner. He has not alleged in the plaint as to in what circumstances, he affixed his signatures on the aforesaid documents. The plaintiff also did not file any replication to the written statement of the defendants. Consequently, averments made in the written statement regarding the aforesaid documents stand completely uncontroverted and are deemed to have been admitted. In view of said documents, the plaintiff''s suit has been rightly dismissed being not only meritless but also frivolous and vexatious being result of greed and dishonesty of the plaintiff.

Matter may also be examined from another angle. On the one hand, the plaintiff alleged that they held dharna when he was being dispossessed forcibly on 27.1.2006. On the other hand, the plaintiff was allegedly forcibly dispossessed on 28.1.2006 and the plaintiff then waited for about 6 months to file the suit on 22.7.2006. If the plaintiff had been dispossessed from the suit property forcibly as alleged in the plaint, the plaintiff would not have waited for about six months (which was limitation period for filing the suit). Thus, examined from any angle, it is manifest that suit of the plaintiff has been rightly dismissed by the trial court. There is no infirmity much less perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is meritless and frivolous and is accordingly dismissed.