NRUSINGHA PRASAD SAHOO Vs. RAMA KUMARI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF has filed the present Civil Revision against the orders of the trial Court and appellate Court rejecting the application for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure (in short, the 'C.P.C.').

(2.) THERE is no dispute that the present opposite party is the owner of a building known as 'Garden Bungalow' at Jeypore. It is claimed that Messrs P.R.Tata and Co. of Bombay had entered into an arrangement with the opposite party for the purpose of carrying on business in the district of Koraput and the said Company had taken the disputed house on monthly rent from the previous owner, the ex -Ruler of Jeypore, in 1948. It is further claimed that the arrangement between the Company and the present opposite party had ceased since 1980, but the accounts had not been settled. It is further stated that since there was dispute between the Company and the present opposite party, the opposite party is taking steps to get back possession of the disputed house which is under occupation of the present petitioner who claims to be an authorised agent of the Company, P.R. Tata and Co., It is stated that he is living in the disputed hours and looking after the affairs of the Company. It is claimed that one S. Rama Rao Patnaik was an employee of M/s. D.P.Tata and Sons, a sister concern of M/s. P.R.Tata and Co. The present opposite party filed T.S. No. 49 of 1983 against the aforesaid S.Rama Rao Patnaik for eviction. During pendency of the said suit, S.Rama Rao Patnaik having expired, his legal representatives were substituted. It is claimed that in the said suit written statement had been filed stating that the real tenant in respect of the disputed house was M/s. P.R. Tata and Co. and suit against the defendant, S. Rama Rao Patnaik was not maintainable. During the pendency of the said suit, the present petitioner filed an application to be impleaded as party on the ground that he had been appointed as the authorised agent of M/s. P.R. Tata and Co. While the present petitioner's application was pending, the suit was dismissed for default. Subsequently, an application for restoration was filed. It is claimed that the hearing of the restoration petition was advanced behind the back of the present petitioner who had already filed an application for intervention and the suit was restored and on the basis of a collusive compromise between the original plaintiff (present opposite party) and the legal representatives of the original defendant, a compromise decree was passed. Though in the compromise petition, it was stated that possession had been delivered, actually opposite party could not take possession from the present petitioner who was occupying the house. Subsequently, Execution Case No. 17 of 1991 was filed for taking possession of the disputed house. Since the opposite party had obtained a collusive decree, the present petitioner filed an application in the execution case to intervene on behalf of the Company, but the said application was rejected on 26.9.1995 on the ground that the Company P.R. Tata and Co. was not a party to the suit. Thereafter, the present petitioner as authorised agent of P.R. Tata and Co. filed Title Suit No. 30 of 1996 for permanent injunction against the present opposite party stating that the plaintiff should not be evicted except in accordance with law. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. was filed. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court rejected the said petition by order dated 29.10.1996. In appeal, the said order having been confirmed, the present revision has been filed.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the opposite party has filed various documents to show that the present petitioner had participated in the earlier suit in his alleged capacity as the authorised agent of the legal representatives of the defendant, and the present suit has been filed just to drag on the proceeding. It is further submitted that prior to filing of the present suit, T.S. No. 51/95 was filed by present petitioner purporting to be the authorised agent of M/s. P.R. Tata and Co. and the said suit having been dismissed as withdraw without any leave of the Court to file fresh suit on the same cause of action, the subsequent suit may not be maintainable. It is further submitted that the subsequent suit is not purported to have been filed on behalf of M/s. P.R. Tata and Co. and whatever may be the right of M/s. P.R. Tata and Co., the present petitioner who has filed the suit in his individual capacity, has no locus standi to maintain the suit nor has any individual right to protect.