ZILA PANCHAYAT DEORIA Vs. JAGRITI SEVA SANSTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from evicting them from the office allotted to it by the Chairman Zila Panchayat Deoria. This suit was filed on 27.1.2006. An application for grant of a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C was also filed. It transpires, that the Zila Panchayat apprehended that a suit was going to be filed, therefore, it filed a caveat before the civil court. At the time of the presentation of the suit, the defendants appeared and objected to the grant of a temporary injunction. While the hearing on the application for temporary injunction was going on, the plaintiffs filed an application under Section 151 of the C.P.C. praying that the plaintiffs possession be restrained as they have been evicted by the defendants during the hearing of the injunction application. This application was rejected by an order of the trial court, pursuant to which, the plaintiffs filed a revision which was allowed by a judgment dated 27.5.2006. The revisional court, by its order, directed the defendants to give possession of the premises in question within 15 days. The defendants, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) BEFORE proceeding further, it is essential to state the factual background which led to the filing of the suit.

(3.) A perusal of the plaint indicates that the plaintiffs has not disclosed as to when they came in the possession of the premises upon the premises becoming vacant. This is a crucial fact which has not been averred by the plaintiff in their plaint. Another striking feature is that the order of the cancellation of the allotment has not been disclosed in the plaint. The plaintiffs have concealed this fact. It was in their knowledge that the allotment of the premises made by the ex-Chairman was cancelled by an order dated 30.3.2005 which was published on 31.3.2005 in the Hindi Daily "Dainik Jagran". The plaintiff No. 2 cannot escape from this fact nor can she allege that the allotment order was never cancelled. This is on account of the fact that the plaintiff No. 2 had filed a writ petition challenging the notice dated 30.3.2005 which was published in the news paper on 31.3.2005. The notice, clearly indicated at Sl. No. 24 about the cancellation of the premises in favour of the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, nondisclosure of the cancellation order was a deliberately done by the plaintiffs for vested reasons. Not only this, the litigation initiated by the plaintiff No. 2 before the High Court in a writ petition was also not disclosed.