HARPAL SINGH Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition impugns an order dated 21.08.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (North) in Execution No. 213 of 2009 whereby the objections filed on behalf of the JD under Section 47 of CPC challenging the very basis of the judgment and decree were dismissed.

(2.) A suit for permanent injunction was filed by the respondents herein in the year 2000 for restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the land and further restraining them from objecting to the plaintiffs raising a boundary wall or from dispossessing them from the suit premises without due process of law. The petitioner's case is that the respondents had earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction bearing No. 469/2002 which was dismissed by the Civil Judge on 14.02.2005 on the ground that the suit was barred under Section 185(1) of the Delhi Land Reform Act, 1954 since the suit property was situated in a rural area and was an agricultural land. It is submitted that thereafter, the respondents had filed another suit bearing No. 1/06/05 apropos the same land and the relief which was prayed for in the earlier suit, was prayed for in this suit also. This suit, however, was decreed ex parte in favour of the plaintiff/respondent.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subsequent suit did not disclose dismissal of the earlier suit. Since, it amounted to concealment of material facts; the decree would be bad in law. He further submits that the Civil Judge would have no jurisdiction to pass the decree in the circumstances since such a suit is barred under Section 185(1) of the D.L.R. Act. He further contended that there is no notification of urbanisation of the land in question. He relied upon the cases of Sh. Balbir Singh v. Pt. Pehlad, 1988 AIR(Del) 312, Chandrika Misir v. Bhaiya lal, 1973 2 SCC 474 and Sunder Dass v. Ram Parkash, 1977 2 SCC 662 in support of his contentions.