JHUMMANSINGH Vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition brings to light a serious abuse of process of Court - indeed an abuse of the process of more than one court - indulged in by certain unscrupulous person. Since the facts of the case are themselves demonstrative of the said abuse perpetrated by Respondent No.3, we would set them out first.

(2.) The four writ petitioners are the tenants of four shops comprised in property bearing No. WZ-93, Titarpur, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi - 110027, while the third respondent is occupying the fifth shop as a tenant. According to the petitioners, one Siyaram Gupta was the owner of the said five shops. On his death in or about 1983, his wife, Smt. Urmila Devi and her three daughters became the owners. Towards the end of the year 1992, the petitioners say, the landlady offered to sell the shops to the respective tenants. Three of the petitioners purchased the three shops occupied by them. Sale deeds were also executed in their favour. after the death of Smt. Urmila Devi, the petitioners say, the third respondent, Sri Sangat Singh started declaring himself as the owner of all the five shops and demanded rent from the petitioners which they resisted.

(3.) The petitioners complained that with a view to get the writ petitioners evicted from the shops otherwise than by due process of law, the third respondent restored to a devious device. Two decrees were obtained against the Petitioners 1 and 2 - one from the Court of Assistant District Judge-I at Gauhati against the first petitioner and the other from the Sub-Judge-I, Gaya (Bihar) against the second petitioner's father. The decree from the Gauhati Court is dated May 18, 1994 in Arbitration Suit No. 47 of 1994 making an award the rule of the Court. The award is said to have been obtained by one Sri Bhupinder Singh, S/o Sri Harcharan Singh, R/o Sri Mantapur, Bhangaghar, Gauhati against Sri Jhumman Singh, S/o Sir Chadda Singh, R/o Titar Pur, New Delhi (the first writ petitioner in this writ petition). The decree says that the defendant, Sri Jhumman Singh shall pay a sum of Rupees fifty thousand plus interest twelve per cent per annum from April 1, 1992 till the day of payment to Sri Bhupinder Singh and shall also hand over peaceful vacant possession of the property bearing Shop No. 4 forming part of premises WZ 93/4 situated at Titarpur, Main Najafgarh Road, Tagore Garden, New Delhi. A Site plan is attached to the said decree specifying Shop No. 4 which the defendant to the said decree was to hand over to the plaintiff therein. The other decree passed by Sub-Judge-1st, Gaya is also a decree making an award the rule of the court. The award which has been made a rule of the Court directs, inter alia, that Sri Ala Noor S/o Sri Amir Bux, R/o Titarpur, New Delhi shall hand over to the plaintiff therein peaceful vacant possession of the Shop No. 3 forming part of property No. 93/3, Titarpur, Main Najafgarh Road, Tagore Garden, New Delhi-27 (specified in the annexed plan) within fifteen days of the said Award being made a rule of the Court. In default, the plaintiff, Sri Ravi Raj Singh, was held entitled to execute the said decree and recover the possession. Execution was taken out of the said two decrees and then transferred to Delhi for execution. Petitioners 1 and 2 came to know of the said decrees only when the Bailiff came along with the warrants of delivery of possession of the said premises. On account of the resistance put up by the petitioners, supported by the neighbours, the Bailiff could not execute the decrees on that day. On verification from the Court records, the petitioners say, they came to know the particulars of said decrees. Petitoners 1 and 2 say that they had nothing to do with the persons shown as plaintiffs in the said decrees, had no dealings with them much less was there any dispute between them either at Gauhati, Gaya or anywhere else. They even doubt whether any such persons really exist. According to them, the whole thing is a fabrication indulged in by third respondent to get the Petitioners 1 and 2 evicted surreptitiously. They submit that obtaining the said fraudulent decrees and the manner in which they were sought to be executed and the petitioners sought to be evicted from their shops is the result of a criminal conspiracy hatched by the third respondent. It amounts to criminal offence besides a gross abuse of process of the Court. Accordingly, they pray for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the C.B.I. to enquire and investigate into the circumstances in which the aforesaid decrees were passed and to take appropriate action against the persons responsible therefor.