LAWS(GAU)-2019-1-20

NUMALIGARH REFINERY LIMITED Vs. JAHURA BEWA

Decided On January 17, 2019
Numaligarh Refinery Limited Appellant
V/S
Jahura Bewa Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. N. Deka, the learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. A. Ikbal, the learned advocate for the respondent.

(2.) By this revision filed under Section 115 C.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.03.2018, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dhubri in Misc. (J) Case No. 5/2018, arising in T.S. No. 34/2016, thereby refusing the prayer for rejection of plaint.

(3.) The respondent herein is the plaintiff in TS 34/2016. The suit is filed against thirteen main defendants and sixteen proforma defendants. The suit was for declaration of right, title and interest of the respondent over the suit land and for recovery of khas possession by removing the defendants and demolishing the structures, for cancellation of Agreement dated 17.04.2007 and Lease Agreement dated 06.11.2018. In the plaint, the case projected by the respondent is that she had inherited a plot of land from her father which is referred to as "Schedule-A land". The suit land, referred to as Schedule-B land is measuring 1B-3K-0.43L, forming part of Schedule-A land. It is claimed that till 2012, the respondent was in possession of the suit land and that M/s. Galaxy Service Station, defendant No.5 started the work in 2013 and opened a petrol and diesel outlet on 28.03.2014. It was stated that one Indadul Haque, defendant No.7, by influencing her and by deceitful means, obtained a registered Power of Attorney in respect of 2B-1K-8L, out of Schedule-A land, bearing Deed No. 87 dated 17.04.2007. On the same date, the defendant No. 7 also made an agreement with the respondent for sharing monthly rent received in respect of the said land, bearing registered Deed No. 1471 dated 17.04.2007. Subsequently, on 05.07.2007, a rectification deed was made in respect of Deed No. 1471 dated 17.04.2007. It was stated that by misinfluencing and misguided the respondent, the defendant No.7 obtained a registered lease agreement, bearing Deed No. 178 dated 06.11.2008 in favour of the petitioner, namely, Numaligarh Refinery Limited for restoration of petrol and diesel pump on the suit land. It was alleged that the lease agreement was not made in accordance with the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties, projecting that the lease ought to be for three year term. It was further stated that the lease was registered without obtaining permission from the concerned authority and the retail outlet was illegally sublet to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, defendant No.4. it was also stated that one Ganesh Daimary, defendant No.3 had sublet the said retail outlet, the suit property to the defendant No.4 and that one Ramakanta Sharma, defendant No.8 started construction work on the suit land for installation of petrol and diesel pumps and made certain other constructions and the petrol/ diesel pump was opened on 28.03.2014 with licence bearing the name of defendant No.3 in the name of defendant No.4. It is stated that the respondent had not made any agreement with the defendant No.2 in his own name to defendant No.9 in respect of the suit property, but the defendant No.5 deposited monthly rent of Rs.4,300/- in her account, which was paid by defendant No.8 and that the defendant No.7, on the basis of deed No. 1471 dated 17.04.2013, receipt 50 per cent share of totally monthly rent. It was further stated that after expiry of three years, when the plaintiff asked the defendants No. 1, 2 and 7 for renewal of agreement dated 06.11.2008, they avoided and on 12.03.2013, the respondent obtained a certified copy of the lease agreement dated 06.11.2008 and came to know about the illegality of illegally registering a thirty year lease. Hence, the suit was filed, projecting that the agreement was false and was made on a blank signed paper. Later on, on coming to understand, the respondent had cancelled the said General Power of Attorney on 11.04.2013 and had informed the defendant No.7 about the same. The cause of action for the suit was stated to be 17.04.2007, 05.07.2007, 06.11.2008, January to December, 2012, 27.03.2013, 11.04.2013, January to February, 2014, 28.03.2014, 11.10.2015, January to July, 2016.