MALTI BHADORIA Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , in this petition, has prayed for following relief: -

(2.) THE short grievance put forth by Shri Sharma, is that earlier the petitioner filed a Civil Suit for declaration and permanent injunction with further relief of specific performance. The said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner by judgment and decree dated 15th September, 2010 (AnnexureP -4). However, in First Appeal No.05/2011, this Court by judgment dated 18 -04 -2013 set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Shri Sharma, submits that at present petitioner is ready to pay the price of accommodation as per present rate. Petitioner is already in possession for more than 12 years and, therefore, respondents be directed to consider her representation Annexure P -5. In Annexure P -5, petitioner has stated as under: - .........[vernacular ommited text]...........

(3.) I do not see any merit in the said contention. Once the judgment and decree is set aside, it became nullity in the eyes of law. [See. M/s. Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. vs. Church of South Indian Trust Association, Madras, AIR 1992 SC 1439 followed by Division Bench of this Court in Kunal Kanti Majee vs. Chancellor, Rani Durgawati Vishvavidyalaya, Jabalpur and Others 2008(1) MPLJ 577] Whether or not petitioner is in possession, is a disputed question of facts which cannot be gone into in a writ petition. Merely because petitioner is in possession for more than 12 years as alleged, no relief can be granted to her in a writ petition. The petitioner has not shown any document to show that the respondents have decided to allot the plot in question and, therefore, this Court has no occasion to direct MP Housing Board to decide the representation/candidature of petitioner. Apart from this, the averment in the representation reproduced above runs contrary to the relief clause of the petitioner.