SUDHIR CHANDRA JAIN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, the annal of this litigation is that a Suit for Possession and Damages had been filed by the Respondent No.1 in the Civil Court. It appears that the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PP Act') had been made applicable to these premises in 1997. The contention of learned counsel for the Respondent is that for this reason the Suit for Possession and Damages had been withdrawn. It is contended that leave to agitate the question of damages had been left open. To ascertain whether leave was reserved, I have perused the Order whereby that Civil Suit was permitted to be withdrawn on 5.8.1999 which reads as follows:- In the present suit an application had been moved on behalf of the plaintiff U/s 151CPC on 15.3.99 for withdrawal of the suit. In the present application it has been stated that the plaintiff do not want to pursue the suit and the same may be dismissed as withdrawn. Proxy Cl. for the plaintiff has stated that the representative of the plaintiff Sh. Jyoti Marwah also wants to withdraw the present suit and the same may be dismissed as withdrawn. Sh. Jyoti Marwah also made his statement in this regard. In view of the above set of facts, the present application of the plaintiff is allowed and the present suit is dismissed as withdrawn, as prayed. Let file be consigned to record room.

(2.) The inescapable consequence of this Order was that the claim for mesne profits stood abandoned. It is also possible to contend that even the claim for possession had stood abandoned since liberty on this question had not been reserved. Fortunately, the second issue does not arise since the proceedings under the P.P. Act eventually culminated in eviction orders being passed against the present Petitioner. Against these eviction orders he unsuccessfully filed an Appeal before the Additional District Judge, and eventually filed a Writ Petition in this Court when the Appeal was dismissed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Respondent contends that it is possible to claim damages/mesne profits even under the PP Act. If this is so, then these claims stand legally barred by virtue of Order II Rule 2 of the CPC.