Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. THAKUR & R. BANUMATHI, JJ.
Principal Government Pre-University College – Appellant
Vs.
Jambu Kumar Mutha – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 10418 & 10419 of 2014 and Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) No. 19634 & 20841 of 2012
Decided On : 20.11.2014
Permanent injunction restraining – Condo nation of delay – Application to tender additional evidence - End result of discussion on issues was a decree in favors of Plaintiff-Respondent to effect that he was owner of plaint Schedule B property unauthorized construction raised over which was liable to be removed - Trial Court further restrained Defendants from interfering with possession of Plaintiff over Schedule A property which was held to be in ownership and possession of Plaintiff Defendants case, as set out, in the written statement filed on their behalf was that suit property belonged to State Government and that same had been used for construction of a Government school building subsequently upgraded as a pre-university college being run and maintained by State Government - On pleadings of the parties trial Court framed as many as eight issues which were answered by Court in terms of its judgment and decree end result of the discussion on issues was a decree in favor of Plaintiff-Respondent – Held, It is evident from above passages extracted from main order that High Court was not very happy with Governments response to proposal made by Plaintiff-Respondent part with Schedule B property by way of a settlement leaving remainder of property to Plaintiff. Apart from fact that Schedule B property comprises just about feet which is already built upon thereby leaving hardly any space for students to use as a playground learned Counsel for Appellants, argued that High Court was not justified adopting a colored approach to prayer for condo nation - He urged that offer made by Plaintiff-Respondent was not acceptable and was in any case no substitute for a proper determination of issues that fell for consideration - High Court has while dismissing application for condo nation of delay made by State dismissed even appeal preferred by Appellants in after obtaining leave of Court - While doing so High Court has not gone into merits of controversy and has simply declined to interfere with impugned judgment and decree with following observations - In view of State Government having filed an appeal in respect of very judgment and decree appeal in would not merit consideration and accordingly rejected court are in peculiar facts and circumstances of case, are of opinion that High Court was not correct in dismissing RFA summarily as it has done - Whether or not an appeal was maintainable at instance of someone who was not a party to the suit was itself a matter which ought to have engaged the attention of the High Court - High Court has not, however adverted to that aspect and dismissed appeal simply because appeal preferred by State had been dismissed. That apart, since an appeal against the very same judgment and decree as was challenged in was already pending before the High Court High Court ought to have taken a more pragmatic view of matter and condoned delay in filing of said appeal on such terms as it may it consider it proper - It is no doubt true that delay in filing of State appeal was considerable but given circumstances in which delay had occurred court are inclined to condone same – Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
T.S. THAKUR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise out of a common order dated 13th February, 2012 passed by the High Court of Karnataka whereby Regular First Appeals No. 806 of 2000 and 296 of 2011 filed by the Appellants have been dismissed.
3. In OS No. 125 of 1996 Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 in these appeals prayed for declaration of his title over the suit property, removal of unauthorised construction raised over the same and permanent injunction restraining Defendants in the suit from interfering with the Plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The Plaintiff's case in a nutshell was that he is the owner of the land measuring 1 acre 38 guntas situate in Malur Town, Kalur District fully described in the plaint out of which the Defendants had unauthorisedly occupied an area measuring 377 feet x 34 feet to construct a school building. This unauthorised occupation and construction was, according to the Plaintiff, to be removed and possession over the entire suit property protected by issue of a permanent prohibitory injunction against the Defendants.
4. The Defendant's case, as set out, in the written statement filed on their behalf was that the suit property belonged to the State Government and that the same had been used for construction of a Government school building subsequently upgraded as a pre-university college being run and maintained by the State Government. On the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed as many as eight issues which were answered by the Court in terms of its judgment and decree dated 23rd June, 2000. The end result of the discussion on the issues was a decree in favour of the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 to the effect that he was the owner of plaint Schedule "B" property unauthorised construction raised over which was liable to be removed. The trial Court further restrained the Defendants from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiff over Schedule 'A' property which was held to be in ownership and possession of the Plaintiff.
5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, Appellants in SLP (C) No. 20841 of 2012 approached the High Court for permission to file an appeal against the said judgment and decree which permission was granted by the High Court by its order dated 30th November, 2000 culminating in the filing of RFA No. 806 of 2000. No appeal, it appears, was filed by the State Government or by the Principal of the Government Pre-University College Defendants in the suit to challenge the judgment and decree suffered by them. I.A. No. 2 of 2008 was, however, moved by them in RFA No. 806 of 2000 seeking their transposition as Appellants in the said appeal. That prayer was declined by the High Court by an order dated 18th November, 2010 with the observation that the Defendants-Respondents No. 2 and 3 in RFA No. 806 of 2000 being parties to the suit were free to challenge the judgment and decree passed against them in separate appeals, if they so advised.
6. It was thereafter that Defendants-Appellants in SLP (C) No. 19634 of 2012 filed RFA No. 296 of 2011 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in which they filed an application seeking condonation of intervening delay in the filing of the appeals. That application has been dismissed by the High Court in terms of the order impugned in these appeals.
7. The High Court has not only found the explanation offered by the Appellants unacceptable but also considered the Appellant's refusal to accept the offer made by the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 to be what it has described as "inexplicable and deplorable". The relevant part of the order of the High Court reads as under:
Yet another circumstance that is equally inexplicable and deplorable is the fact that there was a voluntary offer from the Respondent, who has benefit of a judgment and decree, to hand over the disputed suit property described in Schedule-B to the plaint for the benefit of the State Government, since it is adjoinin
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
