JITENDRA GOEL Vs. SEWAKRAM PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the C.P.C.) questioning the order dated 22.03.2018 passed by the District Judge, Raipur, in Civil Suit No. 31-A/2017, by which, the application filed by him under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the C.P.C. has been refused

(2.) Facts leading to this appeal are that a suit for declaration and injunction was filed by the plaintiff submitting, inter alia, that he acquired the valid right, title and interest upon the land in question bearing Kh.Nos.383/2, 383/3 and 402 admeasuring respectively as 0.182 hectares, 0.061 hectares and 0.121 hectares, total admeasuring 0.364 hectares on the strength of a registered deed of sale dated 20.12005, purported to have been executed in his favour by its real owner, i.e., R.K.Dubey, the defendant No. According to the plaintiff, a part of the suit land, i.e., bearing Kh.No. 402 admeasuring 0.121 hectares and a piece of land admeasuring 0.0557 hectares of Kh.No.383/2 has been acquired for widening the road for National Highway No. 43/30 by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)-cumLand Acquisition Officer while initiating the acquisition proceedings against defendant No.1, which was registered as Land Acquisition Case No. 09(5)/A82/2014-15. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that in the month of January, 2017, he came to know about the said acquisition proceedings and further came to know that the revenue papers in relation to the suit land are in the name of defendant No.1, who informed him in response to his notice, that he acquired the valid title over the suit land by virtue of the registered deed of sale dated 24.02012 executed in pursuance to the execution of ex parte decree dated 30.10.2010 passed in a suit for specific performance of contract instituted by him (defendant No.1) against his vendor R.K.Dubey (defendant No.2).

(3.) It is pleaded further in the plaint that since he had already acquired valid right, title and interest over the suit land way back in 2005 from his vendor R.K.Dubey, therefore, defendant No.1, in collusion with his vendor has obtained the alleged ex parte decree in a suit for specific performance contract by playing fraud upon the Court. Based upon these facts, the instant suit has been filed seeking declaration to the effect that the alleged ex parte decree is null and void with a further claim for restraining defendant No.1 to obtain the amount of compensation as assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer in the said acquisition proceedings.