RAMESHWAR SINGH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE FAIZABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.D.C.Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr.R.S.Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

(2.) THE petitioners have challenged the order dated 20th of July, 2010, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Faizabad in Original Suit No. 241 of 2004 as also the order dated 10th of November 2010, passed by the District Judge, Faizabad in Civil Revision No. 215 of 2010.

(3.) MR.Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that basically the dispute between the parties is for the propriety of Sarvarahkar of Thakur Vijay Raghav Bhagwan Virajman Ranopali , Faizabad, which is pending consideration at the stage of second appeal being second appeal No. 461 of 2006 before this Court arising out of orders passed in the Appeal as well as in suit No. 324 of 1987, filed by one MR.Rajveer Singh, in which the petitioners as well as present respondents 3 and 4 are the respondents. In 2004, the respondent No. 3 Mahant Ramesh Das and Rajdeo Das @ Rajveer claiming themselves as Sarvarahkar of Thakur Vijay Raghav Bhagwan Virajman Ranopali filed a suit being suit No. 141 of 2004 for permanent injunction, against the petitioners, which is pending consideration. Subsequently they also filed a suit being suit No. 241 of 2004 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faizabad seeking a decree for declaration of a sale deed executed in favour of the petitioners as void. The petitioners raised objection against the maintainability of the suit on the ground that suit is barred by Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C. They submitted that when in 1987 they filed the suit bearing Suit No. 324 of 1987 raising the dispute of Sarvarahkar, in paragraph 6 of the plaint they alleged that they had already instituted a suit for declaration of sale deed as illegal, which indicates that they were aware with the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioners at that very time and being aware with the said facts, they could have sought the relief for cancellation of sale deed, but they relinquished their claim and now in the light of the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C, it is not open for them to sue the petitioners for such a relief, which they have already omitted.