LAWS(P&H)-2003-5-25

DASHMESH BHATTA COMPANY Vs. VAJINDER SINGH

Decided On May 22, 2003
DASHMESH BHATTA COMPANY Appellant
V/S
VAJINDER SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code') challenging an order dated 12-5-2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal whereby the order of status quo issued by the Civil Judge in favour of the defendant-appellant has been set aside.

(2.) Brief facts as prima facie reflected in the orders of both the Courts below as well as in the grounds of this revision petition are that the plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of mandatory and permanent injunction to the effect that the registered lease deed dated 5-12-1997 and the agreement of lease dated 20-1-1999 are illegal, null and void. It was further claimed that the aforementioned documents have been prepared by way of fraud played by the defendant-petitioner upon the plaintiff-respondents. The relief of mandatory injunction has also been sought by the plaintiff-respondents seeking direction to the defendant-petitioner to level the land as per terms and conditions of the agreement of lease and make the land fit for cultivation. It is appropriate to notice that the lease deed dated 5-12-1997 was executed and was to run for a period of 21/2 years which permitted the defendant-petitioner to lift earth from the leased land as required for running of brick kiln. Accordingly, the lease was to terminate on 15-6-2001. There was an undertaking in the lease deed that the defendant-petitioner after the expiry of the lease, would get the land levelled and surrender its possession to the plaintiff-respondents. The lease money is specified and was to be paid according to the terms stipulated in the lease deed. Accordingly, the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit seeking a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant-petitioner to get the land levelled as per terms and conditions of the lease deed and make it fit for cultivation. Further damages have also been claimed for the period during which the plaintiff-respondent could not use the land because it was not got levelled as per terms and conditions. A further declaration was sought that the agreements dated 20-1-1999 and 5-12-1997 registered by the Sub-Registrar, Karnal were the result of fraud because the plaintiff-respondents were illiterate persons.

(3.) The defendant-petitioner in its written statement claimed that the period of lease was from 15-6-1997 to 14-6-2001. It has further been claimed that according to the terms of lease deed dated 5-12-1997, out of total land possession of 22 kanals 9 marlas was to be delivered to the defendant-petitioner on 5-12-1997 and the same was to remain with the defendant-petitioner upto 15-6-2000. It has further been pleaded by the defendant-petitioner that possession of rest of the land measuring 16 kanals was to be delivered to it on 1-10-1998 and the possession was to remain with it upto 15-6-2001. The defendant-petitioner has also pleaded that the lease deed was got registered at the office of Sub-Registrar, Karnal. Another agreement dated 20-1-1999 has also been set up by the defendant-petitioner, according to which the possession of 16 kanals of land was to be delivered on 1-10-1999 instead of 1-10-1998 and the defendant-petitioner was to remain in possession of the land upto 14-6-2001. The defendant-petitioner has also claimed that it is not liable to level the land because the plaintiff-respondent did not allow the defendant-petitioner to dig the earth in accordance with the terms of lease deed. The earth was yet to be lifted by the defendant-petitioner from 11/2 acres of the area and, therefore, the plaintiff-respondents were not entitled to the relief claimed. As a counter-claim the defendant-petitioner sought a decree of mandatory injunction seeking direction to the plaintiff-respondents that they should not dig and lift the earth from the land measuring 38 kanals 9 marlas. The defendant-petitioner before filing the counter-claim or the written statement filed an application under Section 151 read with Order XXVI, Rule 10 of the Code on 31-10-2002.