Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/1258/2023 on 1 May, 2023
Office Notes,
reports, orders
SL. or proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPMS No.1258 of 2023
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Ms. Sadaf, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari, learned
Standing Counsel along with Mr. Devesh
Ghildiyal, learned Brief Holder for the State.
The present petitioner was a plaintiff in
Revenue Suit No.22 of 87 of 2006-07 preferred
under Section 229-B of the U.P. ZA&LR Act, as it
stood instituted before the court of Assistant
Collector, 1st Class. The said suit was decided by
the judgment of 12.11.2012.
After the judgment and decree of the
Assistant Collector, a civil suit was instituted by
the respondent herein, being Civil Suit No.83 of
2013, "Jaideep Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand
and Others" in which the present petitioner was
one of the defendants, being defendant no.8.
The relief sought in the civil suit thus
instituted on 17.07.2013, was for the grant of
decree of permanent injunction as well as for the
declaration.
The argument of the learned counsel of the
petitioner is that the subsequent civil suit after
the decree rendered in the proceedings under
Section 229-B of the U.P. ZA&LR Act on
19.11.2012 would not be maintainable.
In the suit, the present petitioner has
appeared and has raised an objection pertaining
to the maintainability of the suit by getting an
issue framed in relation to Order 7 Rule 11 of the
CPC. The said issue remained pending
consideration and during the intervening period,
the respondent preferred an appeal as per the
provisions of the Zamindari Abolition Act and
that remained pending.
In the meantime, the civil court in Suit No.
83 of 2013, has decided issue no.7 and 8 by the
order dated 24.03.2018 holding that owing to the
earlier decree rendered in the proceedings under
Section 229-B of the U.P. ZA&LR Act the
subsequent suit would not be maintainable.
Being aggrieved against the said order, the
respondent has preferred a revision, being Civil
Revision No.30 of 2018, "Jaideep Singh and
Others Vs. State and Others" and the said
revision has been decided by the impugned order
dated 30.11.2022 thereby the Court of Second
Additional District Judge has reversed the
judgment of the learned trial Court on issue no.7
and 8 holding thereof that the suit would be
maintainable.
The argument for the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the revisional Court's order
would be bad in the eyes of the law because of
the subsisting earlier decree rendered in the
proceedings under Section 229-B of the U.P.
ZA&LR Act, which later on stood affirmed in an
appeal preferred by the plaintiff in the civil suit.
The issue no.7 and 8 ought to have been
decided in the light of the judgment of the trial
court dated 04.03.2018. Apart from that, he
submits the revisional court while passing the
order dated 30.11.2022 has travelled much
beyond the scope of the question which was
posed before it in the criminal revision as against
the decision under Order 7 Rule 11 in relation to
issue no.7 and 8 and rather the revisional court
at that stage itself has sat over the judgment by
deciding the suit on its merits.
Issue notices to the respondents.
Respondent nos.9 and 10 are represented
by the learned Standing Counsel.
Steps to serve the private respondents
would be taken by the petitioner within a period
of one week from today.
Till the next date of listing, the impugned
revisional Court's order dated 30.11.2022 would
be kept in abeyance.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
01.05.2023
Sukhbant
