Ms Asg Pharma Pvt Ltd vs Divyam Singh And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 4628 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Ms Asg Pharma Pvt Ltd vs Divyam Singh And Others on 26 September, 2025

Author: Rakesh Thapliyal

Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
            AT NAINITAL
                    Civil Revision No. 97 of 2025

MS ASG Pharma Pvt Ltd.                        ..................... Revisionist.

                                      Versus

Divyam Singh and Others.                          ...............Respondents.
Present:
Mr. Ayush Negi, Mr. Sanchit Garg, Mr. Shaswat Jaiswal and Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh,
learned counsel for the revisionist.
Mr. I.P. Kohli, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the caveator.


Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. Brief facts of the case are that an eviction suit bearing SCC Suit No. 24 of 2001 was filed by one Shanti Devi for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits against the defendants who are arrayed as respondent nos. 3 and 4 and the suit was decreed exparte on 24.08.2002. Thereafter, Shanti Devi executed a sale deed on 14.05.2004 in favour of the present revisionist, whereby certain part of the suit property i.e. 4531.08 square meters was sold.

2. Prior to execution of sale deed dated 14.05.2004 exparte decree dated 24.08.2002 in SCC Suit No. 24 of 2001 assailed by the defendants in Civil Revision No. 62 of 2002 which was dismissed on 11.08.2008 against which a review application MCC No. 964 of 2010 was filed by the defendants which was also dismissed on 04.01.2011.

3. During the pendency of Civil Revision No. 62 of 2002 Acquisition Notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17 (4) of Act No. 1 of 1894 was issued for proposing to acquire "1458 square meter and including building", which was challenged by the plaintiffs of SCC Suit in WPMS No. 1075 of 2007. Thereafter the Division Bench disposed of the petition on 04.09.2013 and

quashed the Acquisition Notification dated 07.07.2003, operative portion of which is being reproduced herein as under:

"10. We are of the view that it was unjust on the part of the State Government to take steps to acquire a part of the premises comprising of a house and land attached and appurtenant thereto in violation of the provisions contained in Section 49 of the Act, under which it purported to acquire the premises in question. The said action on the part of the State Government is a malice in law and, accordingly, is interferable. In addition thereto, we hold that there was a colourable exercise of power by the State Government while proposing to acquire part of a larger property and that too from the middle thereof and not from a side of the premises only for the purpose of causing pecuniary loss to the owner of the premises. The public purpose disclosed in the notification was construction of the residential quarter of Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun and of other senior officers. Therefore, the object was to acquire the land and then to construct thereon. The land proposed to be acquired had already an existing building/house. The public purpose was not to protect and preserve the said house for the purpose of continuing the residence of Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun. In other words, the proposal was to acquire the property with the existing main building and the office and thereupon to construct the residence of Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun and of other senior officers, which could only be done after demolition of the existing house and the office. In such a situation, a person of ordinary prudence will only acquire a property from a side thereof and not from the middle of the same. In the instant case, the proposed acquisition was from the middle of the premises and the object thereof, as is crystal clear, was to cause financial loss to the owner of the premises by inducing reduction in the value of the premises to be left with the owner after the acquisition. Therefore, the subject acquisition, in the instant case, was mala fide also on facts also.

11. We, accordingly, interfere and set aside the notification. We, however, permit the State Government to acquire the property in whole, i.e. the whole of premises No.72, Rajpur Road, Dehradun, as was let out to the State of Uttar Pradesh in 1954, or to acquire 1458 Sq. metres or any other area from premises No. 72, Rajpur Road, Dehradun either from the eastern, or the western side of the said premises abating on Rajpur Road. The above exercise must be done within three months from today by publishing a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. In the event, no such notification is published, it shall be deemed that the State of Uttarakhand is not at all interested to acquire any part of the said premises."

4. Subsequently, aforesaid judgment dated 04.09.2013 was assailed by the plaintiff of SCC Suit as well as by the State before the Apex Court. Simultaneously, the plaintiff of SCC Suit also filed an execution application before the Executing Court for executing the exparte judgment and decree dated 24.08.2002 in which objections were filed under Section 47 of CPC.

Subsequently, the Executing Court dealt with objections and reject the same on 20.09.2014, against which a Civil Revision No. 32 of 2015 was preferred, which was dismissed on 14.06.2019. Thereafter, judgment dated 14.06.2019 which was also assailed before the Hon'ble Apex Court.

5. Thereafter, all the pending matters pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court, were clubbed together and decided by a common judgment dated 12.09.2024 and the exparte judgment and decree dated 24.08.2002 was set aside by restoring the SCC Suit No. 24 of 2001.

6. Thereafter, in the pending SCC Suit the present revisionist moved an application under Order XXII Rule 10 for seeking impleadment on the ground that by subsequent sale deed dated 14.05.2004 they got absolute right on the part of the suit property measuring 4539 square meter. The said application was rejected by the order impugned dated 23.08.2025 and being aggrieved with the same the instant civil revision has been preferred.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that though the revisionist purchased only part of the property but for proper adjudication revisionist is the necessary party, therefore, for substantial justice the revisionist be permitted to be impleaded as one of the defendant in the SCC Suit. One of the reason in rejecting the application is that the revisionist purchased the part of the property in the year 2004 but no such attempt was made to join the proceeding. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that since the suit was already decreed exparte on 24.08.2002 and, therefore, the suit was not exist, therefore, there was no any occasion to move any such application in the SCC Suit.

8. While hearing the instant matter, Mr. I.P. Kohli, learned Standing Counsel for the State, submits that infact neither the plaintiff of SCC suit nor the present revisionist are the owner of

the property and as a matter of fact the State is the absolute owner of the property. Mr. I.P. Kohli also submits that since the State is the owner of the suit property of the SCC Suit, therefore the SCC Suit filed by Shanti Devi is not maintainable.

9. In response to this, Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the plaintiff, who are the respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein, submits that Shanti Devi leased out the suit property on 17.03.1954 in favour of Governor of U.P. on monthly lease rent of Rs. 162.70 for the period of five years, which was extended time to time. He further submits that submissions as advanced by Mr. I.P. Kohli is absolutely misconceived, which is evident from the lease deed. He submits that the status of respondent nos. 3 and 4 in respect of the Suit property is only as of a tenant.

10. At this juncture Mr. Piyush Garg also pointed out that the arguments of Mr. I.P. Kohli is also misconceived, since at no point of time neither ownership of plaintiff Shanti Devi was questioned nor the subsequent sale deed dated 14.05.2004 by which certain part of the suit property was sold out to present revisionist is challenged.

11. If State is the owner of the suit property then certainly it goes to the root of the matter. Keeping in view of the fact that this litigation is pending since 2001 and now 24 years has been passed and if the State is the owner of the suit property then the question is for what purposes the suit is going on, therefore, to examine this issue, let the State may place on record the documents in order to establish that the State is the owner of the Suit property of SCC Suit No. 24 of 2001.

12. Put up this matter on 08.10.2025.

(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)

26.09.2025 PR