ANJU SHARMA Vs. SURESH CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of Civil Judge, Mathura, rejecting an application for temporary injunction.

(2.) A suit No. 120 of 1984 was filed by respondent No. 1 against respondents 2 and 3 and Manju Goswami, daughter of Shyam Kishan Goswami, in the Court of Judge, Small Causes, Mathura. This suit was decreed ex parte on 27-5-1985. As against this order, an application under Order I, Rule 13, C.P.C. was moved by the respondents 2 and 3. This was rejected on 17-2-1956. The respondents 2 and 3 preferred a revision before the District Judge, Mathura. This revision was rejected on 22-1-1987. Thereafter, respondents 2 and 3 moved Writ Petition No. 2386 of 1987. Jai Kishan Goswami v. District Judge, Mathura. This writ petition was rejected on 12-5-1992. The High Court allowed three months time to respondents 2 and 3 to vacate the premises, provided they furnished adequate undertaking before the Court of Judge, Small Causes, Despite this undertaking, respondents 2 and 3 resorted to the proceedings under Section 47, C.P.C. This application was rejected on 12-8-1992. Aggrieved by this order, respondents 2 and 3 resorted to the proceedings under Section 47, C. P. C. This application was rejected on 12-8-1992. Aggrieved by this for order, respondents 2 and 3 filed Writ Petition No. Nil of 1992 : Jai Kishan Goswami v. Third Additional Civil Judge, Mathura. This writ petition was rejected on 18-8-1992.

(3.) On 11-8-1992, the appellant (Smt. Anju Sharma) filed suit before the Civil Judge, Mathura, praving that the Court may declare the decree passed in SCC Suit No. 102 of 1984 as void and not binding on the plaintiff. Another prayer was made that respondent No. 1 be restrained from taking possession of the property in dispute. The grounds mentioned in the suit were that after the death of her father, who was the sole tenant, she became a co-tenant of the premises in dispute. She was not made a party. On the other hand, Manju Sharma was made a party to the suit. She was never served with any summon in the suit. Consequently, any decree passed in the suit was not binding on her. It was also alleged that the property given in the tenancy of her father was the land. It was not a building. Therefore, the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It was also urged that respondents 2 and 3 are in collusion with respondent No. 1 and had not taken proper care of the suit and allowed it to proceed ex parte. On the above facts, an application for temporary injunction was moved before the Court below. It was prayed that respondent No. 1 be restrained from taking possession over the property in dispute for the execution of decree in Suit No. 102 of 1984.