BALRAJ KUMAR MURRIA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a composite petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the orders dated 10th March 1981 and 4th April, 1981 of the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Jullundur.

(2.) BROADLY stated, the facts giving rise thereto are that Balraj Kumar Murria, the plaintiff petitioner on 2 5 1979 filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 12,610/ - with upto date interest, and for mandatory injunction directing the State of Punjab, defendant respondent to fix his seniority at the appropriate place. The suit was filed by the plaintiff petitioner as an indigent person. The plaintiff -petitioner had also detailed in the said suit how this money was due. The State of Punjab paid a sum of Rs. 15,967.65 p. to the plaintiff petitioner. The plaintiff accordingly amended his suit and gave up the claim to money. He kept maintaining the suit for mandatory injunction and paid Court fee thereon as he had ceased to be an indigent person by then. In the written statement, the State on its own detailing claimed that the plaintiff was only entitled to receive from it Rs. 10, 870/ - and the further claim of the plaintiff was denied. As a sequel to the written statement, the State also filed an application that the plaintiff had been given by it an excess of Rs. 8,498 05 p. and that the plaintiff be ordered to refund this amount to it Notice of the said application was given to the plaintiff He admitted having received the money but claimed that he was entitled to much more money in addition to what he had already been paid after ascertainment of his pending claim in the suit. The trial Court then passed the impugned order dated 10.3.1981 directing the plaintiff to refund a sum of Rs. 8,498 05 p. to the plaintiff and fixed a date for the purpose Since the direction was not obeyed, the trial Court adjourned the suit sine die on 14th April, 1981 vide the second impugned order

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel at length, but it seems to me that the impugned orders are not maintainable and deserve to be quashed as a corrective under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. What goes on between the parties in a suit unaided by the Court or to which the Court's attention is not engaged to determine a point, is something which is outside the domain of the Court The argument of the learned counsel for the State that the defendant was misled to make payment to the plaintiff, whereby he was saved of paying the Court -fee, can adequately be met by saying that if the suit would have been decreed for the suggested erroneous sum, the Court fee would have been part of the costs, which the State saved by such a venture. To the mistaken calculation, the Court was neither a party nor was such payment made by taking the Court into confidence in the discharge of its duties. It is for that reason that the plaintiff even amended his plaint and gave up his claim to the money involved in the suit. It appears to me that the application preferred by the defendant -State was totally misconceived and the impugned orders passed thereon, if permitted to be sustained, would be in the nature of abuse of process of the Court