KESARI PRASAD Vs. 5TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MORADABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THREE writ petitions were filed in this Court i.e. Writ Petition No. 2278 of 1981, Smt. Kesari Prasad v. 5th Additional District Judge and others, Writ Petition No. 817 of 1981, Smt. Lachho alias Luxmi and others v. Additional District Judge and others, and Writ Petition No. 2423 of 1981. Shri Zamir Hasan v. Additional District Judge and others. The aforesaid three writ petitions were heard by me together and were disposed of by a common judgment dated 8.10.1985. The writ petitions filed by the tenants were allowed and the Judge Small Causes Court was directed to decide the suit afresh in the light of the observations made in the judgment and accordance with law. Respondent Bal Niketan Nursery School in Writ Petition No. 2278 of 1981 preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 55-A of 1987. The aforesaid appeal was finally disposed of by the Supreme Court by its judgment dated July 15, 1987. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted to the High Court for disposal on merits after allowing the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. by the appellant and ordering Smt. Chandramukhi Ram Saran Shiksha Samiti through its Secretary, Dr. Om Prakash to be also added as a plaintiff in the suits so as to make it clear that Dr. Om Prakash is representing not only the appellant's school but also the Registered Society and dispose of the writ petitions on merits after the formal amendments have been carried out in the pleadings. The petitioners in the three connected writ petitions after the decision given by the Supreme Court moved applications for disposing of the writ petitions in the light of the decision given by the Supreme Court.

(2.) AFTER due service on parties in pursuance of the decision of the Supreme Court the application under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. was allowed and Smt. Chandramukhi Ram Saran Shiksha Samiti though its Secretary, Dr. Om Prakash was added as a plaintiff in the suits as held by the Supreme Court. All the three writ petitions were thereafter, ordered to be listed for final hearing as held in the judgment given by the Supreme Court.

(3.) SARVASHRI R.R.K. Trivedi and D.C. Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in the writ petitions have not been able to controvert this statement that one appeal alone had been filed against the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2278 of 1981. Normally the respondents would not be able to get benefit of the judgment delivered in the appeal which had been filed against the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2278 of 1981. In so far as the other two writ petitions (Writ Petition Nos. 817 of 1981 and 2423 of 1981) are concerned, admittedly no appeal had been filed before the Supreme Court against the decision in the aforesaid two writ petitions. However, this Court is bound by what has been held by the Supreme Court in its decision dated July 15, 1987. The Supreme Court has held that Smt. Chandramukhi Ram Saran Shiksha Samiti should be impleaded as a plaintiff in all the suits and that the writ petitions be disposed of on merits after the formal amendments have been carried out in the pleadings. In view of the aforesaid findings recorded by the Supreme Court, the three writ petitions are being disposed of on merits.