PARAMJIT SINGH Vs. SOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed by the plaintiff Paramjit Singh under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is alleged by the plaintiff/ applicant in this application that defendants 1 to 4 are getting income of more than Rs. 25,000.00 and that he has got 40 per cent share in the same. He has further alleged that he has suffered in 1984 riots and his house and factory has been listed and he is residing at Ludhiana alongwith his wife and two school going children and he cannot work at Ludhiana due to various Court matters at Delhi. Thus, he is finding it difficult to maintain himself and his family. Therefore, he may be provided maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000.00 per month to support his wife and two school going children, as per the Supreme Court order dated 21.8.199.

(2.) The claim of the plaintiff is resisted by defendants 1 to 4 by filing the reply. They have contended that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts from the Supreme Court in his Special Leave Petition , in which the order on which he is relying has been passed. They contend that the plaintiff is running a factory at Ludhiana and has sufficient income to maintain himself and his family and he had not disclosed this fact to the Hon'ble Supreme Court about his running his own factory and obtained the directions on which he is relying. Though plaintiff is claiming to be a victim of 1984 riots, plaintiff's claim is not correct and, as a matter of fact, the defendant No. I has sufferent in the riots of 1984. It is further contended that the claim of suffering in 1984 riots is made for the first time before the Hon'ble Surpeme Court and not in this proceeding though the plaintiff has filed the suit in 1986, i.e. after the riots of 1984.

(3.) It is further contended that the plaintiff had brought one suit in the District Court claiming to be an indigent person and in this suit an inquiry was held and it was found that his claim of being an indigent person was not correct and his claim has been rejected. Similarly, in view of the order passed in this suit itself on 18.3.1991 the plaintiff is not entitled to claim and get any maintenance. The claim of the plaintiff that the defendants are getting income of Rs. 25,000.00 is false. Plaintiff had already relinquished his share in the partnership and the partnership firm is already dissolved and plaintff is not entitled to claim and get any maintenance from the defendants and, hence, this application of the plaintiff be rejected.