VEER SINGH Vs. PRASHANT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -HEARD Sri Sumit Daga, learned Counsel for the defendant/appellant and Sri Nipun Singh and Sri B. K. Nagaich, Counsels for the plaintiff/respondents.

(2.) AN Original Suit No. 392 of 1988, Veer Singh v. Chitranjan Das was instituted on the ground that the plaintiff is in possession over the disputed property and the defendants are trying to interfere in his peaceful possession and, therefore, they may be restrained from any interference. It is alleged that the defendant Chitranjan Das refused summons, therefore, service was effected by publication in Dainik Jagaran, Lucknow edition. In spite of the publication, Chitranjan Das failed to put in appearance. Suit No. 392 of 1988 was decreed ex parte in favour of the defendant/appellant. Findings recorded in the aforesaid suit in favour of the appellant was never challenged and he continued to be in possession over the property in question. Subsequently, the present Suit No. 54 of 2001 was instituted by the plaintiff/respondent (son of Chitranjan Das) claiming ownership and relief of injunction against the defendant/appellant. The plaintiff claimed ownership and possession which was being interfered by the appellant. The appellant contested the matter by filing written statement and denying plaint allegation and further submitted that there is already a decree in his favour passed in Original Suit No. 392 of 1988, which has become final and also that the suit is barred by sections 38 and 41 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. The suit of the plaintiff/respondent was decreed on 12. 3. 2007, which was challenged in Regular Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2007, which also stood dismissed and the decree was confirmed on 22. 3. 2007.

(3.) THE instant appeal has been filed after expiry of the period of limitation. However, an application under section 5 of Indian Limitation Act has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 3. 3. 2008.