SURJIT DAS Vs. BACHAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners filed civil suit No. 945 on 17-12-1992 for a declaration that Surjit Das petitioner is Mahant of Thakur Dwara Deh Haza Baragi and the land measuring 235 Kanals 14 Marlas is owned by Mahant Surjit Das Chella Hari Das who is Mahant of Thakur Dwara in question and for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from forcibly taking possession of the temporary injunction was filed on which, vide order dated December 18, 1992 parties were directed to maintain status quo over the suit property regarding possession. Later, the defendants against whom an order of status quo had been passed, filed civil suit No. 820 on 5-6-1993 against the petitioner Surjit Das and some others, who earlier had filed civil suit No. 945 of 1992. Along with the suit, defendants filed an application that the petitioners and others be restrained from interfering in their possession. The trial Court dismissed the application and in appeal the application has been allowed and consequently the petitioners have been restrained from interfering in possession of the respondents against which order the present civil revision has been filed.

(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the civil revision has to be allowed. When civil suit No. 820 of 1993 came to be filed, the respondents knew that the petitioners has already filed a civil suit in the year 1992 in which order of status quo had been passed. Despite having knowledge of the previous suit, the respondents did not make statement in the plaint that civil suit between the same parties with regard to the same subject-matter was pending in another Court. By amendment in order VII Rule I, clause (j) has been added which provides that "a statement to the effect that no suit between same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating on the same grounds has been previously instituted or finally decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction or limited jurisdiction and, if so with what result." The purpose of inserting clause (j) in Order VIII, Rule 1, is to maintain uniformity in decisions so that the Court may not pass contradictory findings orders. The respondents were required to make such a statement and in case they had made such a statement, the order which is now impugned, probably would not have been passed. Since in the previously instituted suit, order of status quo had been passed, in my view, that order has to be continued till such time the same is modified.

(3.) Accordingly, the order under revision is set aside and the application of the respondents for injunction shall stand dismissed. Order accordingly.