Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 84
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Amol Rattan Singh, J.
Om Parkash - Appellant
Vs.
Himanshu and Others - Respondents
Civil Revision No. 5493 of 2018
Decided On : 08-03-2019
R.D. Gupta, Adv.
Rejection of Plaint--Rejection does not preclude presentation of fresh suit if the first one is rejected on any of the grounds given in O.7 R.11 CPC
Forcible Dispossession--It does not necessarily mean physical removal by manhandling--Dispossession stands proved once it is shown that the occupant of the suit property was not allowed to enter it by any means
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.6--Restoration of Possession--Forcible dispossession--Landlord replaced the locks of the shop in possession of his tenant and put his own locks--Landlord contented that he had given amount to tenant to vacate the premises therefore he has put his locks--Held; Not a single document either in the form of a compromise deed or in the form of a receipt of said payment placed on record--Simply on oral testimony of witness, which was not corroborated in his cross examination it cannot be held that tenant was forcibly dispossessed--Tenant proved his case that he was dispossessed--Direction issued to restore the possession. (Para 26)
(B) Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.6--Restoration of Possession--Conditions to be fulfilled--Firstly, a person must have been in possession of a particular immovable property; secondly, that he/she was dispossessed of such possession, without his consent; and thirdly that such dispossession was otherwise that in the due course of law--If all three of the aforesaid ‘ingredients’ are proved, then, even if the person who has dispossessed the person in possession, has title to such property, the person dispossessed would be entitled to be put back in possession thereof; the reason obviously being that his dispossession has been otherwise than in accordance with law. (Para 28)
(C) Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.6--Forcible Dispossession--Restoration of Possession--Forced ouster does not necessarily mean physical removed by manhandling--Dispossession stands proved once it is shown that the occupant of the suit property was not allowed to enter it by any means, including by his locks being changed and new locks being put, thereby prohibiting such entry. (Para 31)
(D) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.7 R.13 and O.7 R.11--Rejection of Plaint--Rejection does not preclude presentation of fresh suit--O.7 R.13 CPC specifically allowing filing of a fresh suit if the first one is rejected on any of the grounds given in O.7 R. 11 CPC. (Para 33)
(E) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.7 R.13--Forcible Dispossession--Restoration of Possession--Rejection of Suit does not preclude presentation of fresh suit--Suit filed beyond limitation of six months in first suit was rejected on a date when the Bar was abstaining from wok and such rejection being on the ground that inadequate court fee had been affixed, and the 2nd suit having been filed within 23 days thereafter, duly affixing the court fee--2nd suit held to be maintainable as court fee having been duly paid at the time of its filing--Special Relief Act, 1963, S.6. (Para 33)
Amol Rattan Singh, J.
By this petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat, on 11.09.2015, by which the suit filed by the six respondents herein under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking restoration of the suit property, has been allowed.
2. As per the case of the respondents-plaintiffs, the suit property was a shop in Sonepat, Haryana, that was first occupied as a tenant by their grand-father Goverdhan Dass, in the year 1962 at a monthly rent of Rs. 24. Thereafter, the tenancy was stated to have passed on to the respondents-plaintiffs' father, Jagdish Chander @ Jaggi, upon the death of Goverdhan Dass on 15.02.1989, after which he was stated to have been running the shop in question, with the rent being paid regularly to the present petitioner (landlord).
3. It was further pleaded by the respondents-plaintiffs in their suit that on the morning of 12.10.2008, when Jagdish Chander reached the shop to open it, he found that the locks on the shop had been changed and on enquiry from neighbours, he came to know that the present petitioner, Om Parkash, had broken open the locks used by Jagdish Chander and had replaced them with his own lock. As per the respondents, Jagdish Chander is stated to have contacted the petitioner (defendant in the suit) seeking the reason for the change, to which the petitioner is contended to have replied that all goods belonging to Jagdish Chander had been sent to Panipat.
Jagdish Chander is then stated to have made a complaint to the SHO of Police Station City, Sonepat, upon which FIR No. 410/08 came to be registered on 17.10.2008, alleging therein the commission of offences punishable under Sections 448 and 380 of the IPC.
Therefore, as per the respondents-plaintiffs in their civil suit, the petitioner had broken the locks without the consent of Jagdish Chander and had tress-passed into the shop.
It was further contended by them that an electric meter was also installed in the shop in the name of the father of Jagdish Chander, i.e. the late Goverdhan Dass, thereby further proving that the shop was in the occupation of Goverdhan Dass (and thereafter Jagdish Chander as contended), which had been illegally tress-passed into.
4. The plaintiffs also stated that earlier their father, Jagdish Chander @ Jaggi, had filed a civil suit under the same provision, i.e. Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, seeking restoration of possession of the shop, but Jagdish Chander unfortunately died on 21.04.2009, after which the plaintiffs (in the present lis, i.e. the respondents herein), were impleaded as his legal representatives in that suit, with the trial Court having directed them to pay court fee ad valorem, vide an order dated 14.03.2011, with the last date for depositing the court fee fixed by that Court as 15.04.2011.
5. It was next contended by the respondents in their suit that on 17.08.2011 work had been suspended by the District Bar Association, Sonepat, and on the same date, the suit instituted by Jagdish Chander (with them being his LRs therein), was rejected on an application having been filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
6. Hence, the suit in the present lis was instituted by them on 09.09.2011, which as per the respondents, was within limitation.
7. Notice in the suit, in the present lis, having been issued to the present petitioner-defendant, he appeared and filed his written statement, raising preliminary objections with regard to non-maintainability thereof, further stating that the predecessor-in-interest of the present plaintiffs, i.e. Jagdish Chander, had actually left the shop in question himself after taking a sum of Rs. 15,000/- from the petitioner, with the petitioner also having waived off the rent of the shop for the period 01.01.1999 to 2008.
In reply to the me
