Allahabad High Court
Shamim Qureshi @ Nafees vs Mohd. Shakeel Qureshi And Another on 22 May, 2024
Author: Neeraj Tiwari
Bench: Neeraj Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:92276
Court No. - 50
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6035 of 2024
Petitioner :- Shamim Qureshi @ Nafees
Respondent :- Mohd. Shakeel Qureshi And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhilasha Singh,Ashutosh Yadav,Shyam Lal
Counsel for Respondent :- Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Ashutosh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. Present petition has been filed with the following prayers:
"2. Set aside the Judgment and Order dated 16.08.2023 passed by learned Prescribed Authority/Judge Small Causes Court, Jhansi in P.A. Misc. Case No. 06 of 2019.
3. Set aside the Judgment and Order dated 26.10.2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jhansi in Civil Revision No. 63 of 2023."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier Civil Suit No. 91 of 2014 has been filed between the parties, who are family members and in the present petition too, petitioner and respondents are brothers. In the aforesaid civil suit, vide order dated 22.1.2015, order of interim injunction has been passed to maintain the status quo. He next submitted that during the pendency of civil suit, respondents-plaintiffs has filed P.A. Case No. 31 of 2014 before Prescribed Authority/Judge Small Causes, Jhansi against Mr. Lavesh Kumar Palival, who is tenant of the shop in question, which was allowed vide order dated 06.10.2018. He next submitted that against the order dated 06.10.2018 passed in P.A. Case No. 31 of 2014, Rent Control Appeal No. 28 of 2018 was filed, which was rejected vide order dated 28.07.2021.
5. He next submitted that tenant-defendant also filed Writ A No. 12371 of 2021 before this Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 22.12.2021 against which, he filed Review Application No. 62 of 2022, which was also dismissed vide order dated 21.02.2023. He next submitted that petitioner filed application dated 18.09.2019 before Prescribed Authority under Rule 22 of the The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent And Eviction) Rules, 1972(hereinafter, referred to as, 'Rules, 1972') read with Section 151 and Order 21 Rule 29 of C.P.C., which was registered as Misc. Case No. 6 of 2019. In the said misc. case the only ground taken was that once there is order of interim injunction in the Civil Suit No. 91 of 2014, in case the decree is executed that would violate the order of interim injunction, therefore, till the disposal of the civil suit, execution of decree may be stayed. He next submitted that Misc. Case No. 6 of 2019 was rejected vide impugned order dated 16.08.2023 and against that Civil Revision No. 63 of 2023 was filed, which was also rejected vide second impugned order dated 26.10.2023.
6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Mulraj Vs. Murti Raghunathji Maharaj: 1967 STPL 539 SC, M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and Others: 1987 STPL 5795 SC, Satyabrata Biswas And Others Vs. Kalyan Kumar Kisku And Others: 1994 STPL 1152 SC & Baranagore Jute Factory PLC. Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Baranagore Jute Factory PLC. Etc.: 2017 STPL 3375 SC and judgment of Calcutta High Court in the matter of Punjab National Bank Vs. Delite Properties Pvt. Ltd. And Others: 2003 STPL 16671 Calcutta.
7. Per contra, Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that respondent-plaintiff filed release application for release of shop in question based upon landlord-tenant relationship claiming himself to be the owner of the shop in question. He further submitted that by means of order passed in release application, law is settled that title cannot be decided in SCC Suit and so far as violation of order of interim injunction passed in Civil Suit No. 91 of 2014 is concerned, for that petitioner is having effective remedy to file application under Order 39 Rule 2A C.P.C. He also pointed out that so far as application dated 18.09.2019 under Rule 22 of the Rules, 1972 read with Section 151 and Order 21 Rule 29 of C.P.C. is concerned, it is only for the decree holder and the judgment debtor.
8. He next submitted that petitioner also filed application under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. in execution proceeding, which was rejected vide order dated 10.05.2021 and to the best of his knowledge order dated 10.05.2021 has never been challenged in any court of law. He lastly submitted that petitioner in collusion with the tenant is filing repeated applications under different provisions of law to delay the execution proceeding.
9. Therefore, SCC Court has rightly rejected application dated 18.09.2019 under Rule 22 of the Rules, 1972 read with Section 151 and Order 21 Rule 29 of C.P.C.
10. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as judgments relied upon.
11. It is undisputed that earlier petitioner filed application under Order 21 Rule 97C.P.C. claiming the title over the shop in question, which was rejected. Further, it is also undisputed application dated 18.09.2019 under Rule 22 of the Rules, 1972 read with Section 151 and Order 21 Rule 29 of C.P.C. has been filed only on the ground that there is violation of order of interim injunction passed in Civil Suit No. 91 of 2014. It is also undisputed that in case of violation of order of interim injunction, petitioner is having effective remedy to file application under Order 39 Rule 2A C.P.C. before the court concerned. Therefore, there is no occasion for the SCC Court to entertain such application. Not only this, prima facie it appears that by hook or by crook petitioner is continuously filing application one after another to delay the execution proceeding. So far as judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, they are of no use in the present case for the reason that for violation of order of interim injunction dated 22.01.2015 passed in Civil Suit No. 91 of 2014, petitioner is having effective remedy to file application under Order 39 Rule 2A C.P.C. and not under Rule 22 of the Rules, 1972 read with Section 151 and Order 21 Rule 29 of C.P.C.
12. Therefore, under such facts and circumstances of the case, I found no illegality and infirmity in the impugned orders dated 16.08.2023 and 26.10.2023.
13. Petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
14. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 22.5.2024
ADY
