PRAKASH CHANDRA CHANDIL Vs. ARUN SINGHAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision under Section 115 of CPC has been filed against the order dated 3-11-2015 passed by 11th Civil Judge, Class 2 Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 4A/2014 by which the application filed by the applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.

(2.) The facts necessary for disposal of the present revision in short are that the respondents no. 1 and 2/plaintiffs, have filed a suit for eviction against the respondents no. 3,4 and the applicant on the ground that the disputed shop is shown in red colour in the Plaint map. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant no.1 had let out the disputed shop to the defendant no.2 as a Sikmi tenant on 30-6-1997. A suit was filed for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement and sub-letting, which was decreed and the civil appeal was also dismissed. The defendants no. 1 and 2 filed two separate appeals which are pending before the High Court. It is alleged that the defendant no.1 is tenant of two shops belonging to the plaintiffs and earlier one consolidated suit for eviction was filed, and now two different suits for eviction are being filed.

(3.) Since, this Court is not concerned with the grounds on which the suit has been filed for eviction against the defendants no.1 and 2, therefore, this Court shall only consider the pleadings made against the applicant/ defendant no.3 in the plaint. It is mentioned that the defendants no.1 and 2 obtained stay order from the High Court. The applicant/defendant no.3 is the Counsel for the defendant no.2 and is also a Counsel for the defendants in S.A. No. 424/2003 and the stay order in said appeal was passed in his presence. In spite of that an attempt was made to illegally obtain a water tap connection, whereas the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court had restrained the defendants from obtaining the water tap connection. It was further pleaded that the applicant is a senior advocate and it was his legal duty that he should have advised the defendants no.1 and 2, not to take water tap connection, and it was his duty to ensure that the status quo should have been maintained, but failed in his duty. The tenant has no right to obtain the water tap connection and it is known to the defendants no.1, 2 and the applicant (defendant no.3). They could have obtained an order from the Court, but since, they were aware that they would not be able to obtain such permission, therefore, defendant no.2 started making efforts to obtain the water tap connection in a clandestine manner,which was not objected by defendant no.1. Thus it was prayed that the plaintiffs are entitled to get a decree for eviction on the ground of 12(1)(c) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act. It was also pleaded that the applicant/defendant no.3 is a legal professional and therefore it cannot be presumed that he doesn't know law and he deliberately supported the defendant no.2 by appearing on his behalf before the High Court and thus committed professional misconduct. It was further pleaded that not only the applicant is appearing on behalf of defendant no.2, but he is also encouraging him and filed a counterclaim on incorrect facts whereas the counter claim was not maintainable under Section 41(1) of Specific Relief Act. Thus, it was pleaded that the applicant/ defendant no.3 has actively assisted the defendant no.2 in obtaining the water tap connection. It was further pleaded that the applicant/defendant no.3 is also in habit of arguing before the Court in an illegal manner, which is evident from the fact, that the applicant had filed one appeal on behalf of defendant no.2 before the Court of VIIth A.D.J., Gwalior, which was not maintainable and when, the plaintiffs appeared before the Court below, then the appeal was withdrawn. Similarly, the applicant had filed a contempt petition no. 14/2004 in the High Court which was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn with a cost of Rs. 5000/-. Further in another case between Laxman Rathor Vs Mohanlal Sharma, the applicant had filed the written statement on false grounds, as a result of which the tenant was forced to waive the arrears of rent, and only then the premises was got vacated. Similarly, the applicant/defendant no.3 has obtained various orders from different Courts by suppressing the law. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs are also going to make complaint before the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, against the applicant/defendant no.3. Therefore, a decree was sought for a declaration that the applicant/defendant no.3 has caused nuisance by appearing on behalf of the defendant no.2 in an illegal manner by going against the law, and a direction be issued to the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh to take action against the defendant no.3/applicant.