STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RATNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the reasons stated in the applications the delay in re-filing and filing the appeal is condoned. The defendants State of Haryana and others have lost before the learned first Appellate Court and have approached this Court through the present appeal.

(2.) A suit for possession was filed by the plaintiff claiming that he was a tenant of Punjab Wakf Board in the suit land and had constructed shops therein. The defendants State of Haryana and others had also taken some adjacent area of the same Khasra number for the construction of a Police Post. Police Post was constructed by the Police Department. But later on, they also broke upon the lock of the doors of the plaintiffs areas and forcibly occupied the same. Consequently, the suit for possession was filed by the plaintiff. The defendants took up various technical pleas. They admitted that they had taken some area on lease from Punjab Wakf Board. However, they denied that they had ever entered into forcible possession of the area in possession of the plaintiff.

(3.) The learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff on account of the fact that it was held that plaintiff had not approached the Court with clean hands. It was held that the plaintiff had not disclosed that in earlier litigation with Punjab Wakf Board, he had lost. It was also noticed that notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure had not been given. The plaintiff took up the matter in appeal before the learned first Appellate Court. The learned first Appellate Court reappraised the evidence. It relied upon the statement of DW1 Bir Singh, Clerk of S.P. Office, Panipat and DW2, Mohammad Faruk, Clerk of the Legal Cell of Punjab Wakf Board, who specifically stated that the suit land which had been given to the plaintiff by the Punjab Wakf Board was different than the land which had been given/ allotted to the defendants. On the basis of the aforesaid fact, the learned first Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the defendants had illegally and unauthorisedly taken the possession of the suit property, which was in possession of the plaintiff. It was also noticed that non-disclosure of the earlier litigation by the plaintiff between him and the Punjab Wakf Board was wholly irrelevant inasmuch as the cause of action in the present suit was totally different. The objections with regard to Section 80 CPC notice was also rejected and it was held that the defendants by their act and conduct had waived the serving of the aforesaid notice. Consequently, the appeal of the plaintiff was allowed and the suit filed by him was decreed.