Honble MITAL, CJ. - After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that interest of justice demands that the matter should be sent back to the trial court for fresh decision on the application for injunction filed by the plaintiff- respondent and the application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner-Smt. Draupadi without being influenced by the orders dated 6.1.1984 and 9.1.1984 because these orders were passed at a time when Smt.Draupadi was not party to the proceedings and only Urban Improvement Trust (for short UIT) was party to the suit and they had hardly any interest in the dispute when these orders were passed because much earlier to that UIT had sold the land in dispute to Smt.Draupadi on 4th of March,1983.

(2). It is not disputed that on 4th of March,1983, the UIT sold to Smt.Draupadi-petitioner,a strip of land sandwiched between the residential house of SmtDraupadi and the public road and from this road,Smt.Draupadi had access to her house through this land only.

(3). Narayan, who is respondent in this revision, filed two suits. The first suit was filed against the UIT to claim ownership of the strip of land which was sold by UIT to Smt.Draupadi and also sought temporary injunction. The other suit was filed on 4.9.1983 to pre-empt the sale made by the UIT in favour of Smt.Draupadi.

(4). In the first suit against the UIT, Smt.Draupadi was not made party whereas UIT was also made party in the suit for pre- emption. In the suit filed against the UIT, Narayan obtained order of status quo regarding possession and later on filed application that UIT had disobeyed that order and secured another order under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to get the restoration of possession of the land from the UIT.

(5). When Smt. Draupadi came to know that pursuant to the aforesaid order, possession of the site in dispute is to be restored to Narayan, she filed two applications, one to become party to the suit and another under order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C. for vacation of the injunction Order which was passed by the court below against the UIT. In the applications, Smt.Draupadi had stated about the concealment of material facts, mis-statement of facts by Narayan and particularly stated that filing of suit for pre-emption by Narayan against Smt.Draupadi was material for deciding the interim and final dispute between the parties.

(6). The trial court impleaded Smt.Draupadi as a party to the suit, but the application under Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C. was dismissed by observing that the matter has already been considered in detail on two earlier occasions vide orders dated 6.1.1984 and 9.1.1984. This clearly goes to show that the trial court did not consider the matter afresh after Smt.Draupadi had brought more facts on record and after she had become party to the suit.

(7). After sale.UIT was left with no interest in the land in dispute and it was Smt.Draupadi alone who had to contest and she could contest only if she was made party to the suit. The two orders which resulted in dismissal of her application were passed at a time when true facts were not before the court nor Smt.Draupadi was a party. The filing of the suit for pre-emption might come to the rescue of Smt. Draupadi to take the plea of estoppel against Narayan. Once Narayan wants to pre-empt the sale made by UIT in favour of Smt.Draupadi, it can reasonably be argued by Smt. Draupadi that Narayan could file a suit for pre-emption only if he accepted the sale made in favour of Smt.Draupadi as a good sale.

(8). Without expressing any opinion on the rival contenions of the learned counsel for the parties and on the merits of the case, I consider it just and proper to remand the entire matter to the trial court to decide the same afresh.

(9). Accordingly, the revision is allowed, order of the court below dated 26th of March,1991 is set-aside and the matter is remitted to the trial court to decide afresh both for interim and final purp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document