1988 Supreme(MP) 506

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
V.D. Gyani, J.
Ajay Mishra - Applicant
Vs.
Ranjit Narayan - Respondent
C.R. 45 of 1988 (I)
Decided On : 15-02-1988

Headnote:(1) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) – S.23E – previous revision got dismissed as not pressed – same point cannot be agitated in subsequent revision.

       (2) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O.1, R.10 – application dismissed – party has no locus standi in proceedings.

       (3) Limitation Act, 1963 – S.5 – person watching proceedings – cannot claim condonation of delay on the basis of medical certificate issued thoughtlessly.

       (4) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) – S.23E – revision under – stranger cannot be allowed to file.

        Short Note

       The respondent No.1 filed a suit for ejectment against respondent No.2, his tenant, under S.23 – A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short, the Act). It was in this proceeding that the petitioner on 6 – 6 – 87 made an application under O.1, R.10, CPC for being added as a party. This application was dismissed by the Court vide order dated 21 – 9 – 87. Aggrieved by this dismissal order the petitioner preferred a revision petition (No. C.R. 262/87 – Ajay Mishra v. Ranjeet). This revision petition was dismissed as not pressed. The prayer made in that revision petition was essentially and substantially the same, as made in the present revision petition – namely, that the order dated 21 – 9 – 87, dismissing the petitioner's application under O.1, R.10, CPC be quashed.

       2. The petitioner was not a party to the proceedings before the Rent Controlling Authority. His application dated 6 – 6 – 87 under O.1, R.10, CPC was dismissed on 21 – 9 – 87. Revision petition No 262 of 1987, preferred against this order dated 21 – 9 – 87 also met with dismissal, vide order dated 6 – 10 – 87, passed by this court in Civil Revision No. 262 of 1987. No doubt that it was dismissed as not pressed, as pointed out by the learned counsel, but the net result of such dismissal is that the petitioner has abandoned the relief claimed by him in the petition (See – Sarguja Transport Service v. S.T.A. Tribunal, AIR 1987 SC 88).

       3. Held: In such circumstances the petitioner cannot be allowed to re – agitate the same relief which was claimed in the earlier petition filed by him.

       4. And so long as he is not a party to the proceedings, he cannot maintain this petition, particularly in view of the order passed in Civil Revision No. 262 of 1987.

       5. The other order challenged in this very petition is the order of ejectment dated 5 – 10 – 87, passed by the Rent Controlling Authority (for short, the Authority) against respondent No.2, who was admittedly his tenant and it was the petitioner, who on 6 – 6 – 87 came out with au application under O.1, R.1, CPC, praying for being added as a party to the suit. The basis of such a claim was (as narrated by the petitioner in para 8 of the revision petition) that the respondent No.2 had vacated the shop on 8 – 5 – 87 and simultaneously the petitioner was put in possession of the shop by respondent No.1. This application was rejected by the Authority and as noted above, even the revision petition No. 262/87, was also dismissed by this Court.

       6. The petitioner is a stranger to the proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy as to what locus standi, has he to maintain this petition ?

       7. There are two hurdles. Even if the petitioner, for the sake of argument, is presumed to have some locus standi, the fact that the petitioner did not press his earlier petition (C.R. No. 262/87), which was dismissed on 5 – 10 – 87, the result of such dismissal, as not pressed, is that the relief which was sought in the earlier petition, is abandoned. That is to say, the petitioner, who was not a party, though craved, for being added as a party, but this prayer was not accepted by the Authority. The revision preferred was also dismissed. The petitioner has no locus standi, particularly in view of the order dated 5 – 10 – 87, passed in Civil Revision No. 262/87.

       8. That apart, there is yet another hurdle. This revision petition is barred by limitation, in all, 37 days, as noted by the Registry. The petitioner has filed a certificate of one Dr. Anil Bharani, which is of a routine nature and does not inspire any confidence. At the end of this certificate, the doctor concerned has noted "He is now fit to resume his duties". Learned counsel for the petitioner admitted in the course of his arguments that the petitioner was not required to resume his duty anywhere as he is not in service. Such routine certificates, issued by doctors for a self – serving purpose, do not afford a justifiable cause for condonation of delay. In fact the petitioner, who had earlier preferred Civil Revision No. 262 of 1987, which was dismissed as not pressed, has now come up in revision against the final order of ejectment passed by the Authority on 5 – 10 – 87, although he was not a party to the ejectment proceedings. As the certified copy of the order dt. 5 – 10 – 87 itself shows that the certified copy was delivered to the petitioner on 6 – 10 – 87 itself, but the petitioner, who was so keen as to file a revision against the order not permitting him to be added as a party, did not prefer a revision against the final order till at last the revision preferred by the tenant Vishnu was not dismissed by this Court on 6 – 1 – 1988, a copy of which is available on record.

       9. A person, such as the petitioner, who sitting on the fence watches the proceedings, cannot claim condonation of delay, that too on the basis of such a self – serving medical certificate, thoughtlessly issued by the doctor. The order of ejectment, as passed on 5 – 10 – 87 by the Authority has been upheld by this Court in Civil Revision No. 361 of 1987, preferred by the tenant Vishnu, vide order dt. 6 – 1 – 88. The same cannot now be allowed to be challenged in second innings, in yet another revision petition preferred by a stranger to the proceedings. AIR 1987 SC 88 followed. Revision dismissed.