UNION OF INDIA Vs. MOHD NAYYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the petitions have been tagged on by virtue of consideration of common issues involved in both the petitions. Reliefs sought in Writ Petition No. 47587 of 2003 may be quoted below :

(2.) Impugned here in both the petitions are the orders dated 18.7.2003 passed by revisional court in Revision No. 140 of 1999 and the order dated 24.4.1999 passed in Misc. Case No. 59 of 1994 arising out of Suit No. 49 of 1994.

(3.) The facts in both the petitions are more or less similar. It will suffice to state the facts in the first case. The dispute in the petition relates to property described as A.B.C.D.E.F.G.H.I. in the plaint map. The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for declaration that they were the owners of the land in dispute in possession. A further relief was claimed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-petitioners from interfering with the land in dispute. The claim of the petitioners rests on the ground that the land in dispute was recorded prior to the year 1863 and it constitutes part of Khasra No. 21 admeasuring 67 acres 11 biswas (Pukhta) situated in Nagar Palika Muzaffarnagar. It is further alleged that old numbers assigned to the property in the year 1325 fasli are 2827, 2828 and 2829 and prior to that, in 1270 fasli, it was recorded as property No. 2630, 2631 and 2632. It is further stated that the plaintiff-respondents impleaded Union of India through Chief Secretary and also City Board, Muzaffarnagar through its Chairman. The suit filed in February, 1994 culminated in ex parte decree vide judgment and decree dated 26.5.1994. The trial court by the aforesaid judgment recorded a finding that inspite of service, nobody appeared on behalf of respondents. The Union of India filed an application under Order IX Rule 13, C.P.C. on 26.7.1994 thereby seeking setting aside ex parte decree on the premises that the land in dispute was the property of Central Government and was being used as camping ground for Military Commandoes and that the plaintiffs had no right, title or interest at all by reason of the fact that the property vested in the Central Government. It would transpire that while this application was pending, the plaintiff respondent No. 1 died on 27.3. 1997 and therefore, an application was filed for substitution on 13.11.1998. The ground mentioned therein is that they came to know about the death of opposite party No. 1 only recently though some application was moved on 16.4.1998 of which no copy/notice was served to the defendant applicant. An objection was filed to the effect that the same was not filed within three months and therefore, this application under Order IX Rule 13, C.P.C. has abated. After hearing the parties, the trial court dismissed the substitution application as abated due to non-substitution of the plaintiff respondent No. 1 within time as also the restoration application. The Revision No. 140 of 1999, Union of India v. Mohd. Nayyar, preferred in this regard was also dismissed.