KULDIP KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the face of two orders dated 16th April, 1986 and 31st March, 1986, the matter appears to be simple and if the matter had to be considered and decided on the basis of those simple facts, probably I would have shown indulgence in favour of the petitioner who is plaintiff in the suit and would have granted the necessary relief by extending time or by setting aside the orders dismissing the suit and the application for restoration of the suit which was dismissed in default of the application for restoration of the application for restoring the suit which too was dismissed in default. Mrs. S.K. Bhatia, A.A.G., Punjab, was well prepared and she ably pointed out the facts to show that the suit was an abuse of process of court so as to delay the implementation of the orders of demolition of the building in dispute which was constructed in violation of the provisions of the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act 1953, in the controlled area. Under the circumstances it has become necessary to highlight the facts stated by her in Court which are borne out from the records maintained in this Court.

(2.) Haqiqat Singh raised construction in the controlled area unauthorisedly in violation of the provisions of the aforesaid Act, and the Deputy Commissioner ordered demolition of the construction. To challenge the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner way back on 30th December, 1976, Haqiqat Singh filed C.W.P. No. 1684 of 1977 in this Court and the demolition of the disputed construction was stayed. Several writ petitions involving the same points were filed by different persons who had also raised unauthorised construction. A Single Judge of this Court by a common detailed Judgment dated 18th February, 1980 rendered in C.W.P. No. 415 of 1977, dismissed all the writ petitions including C.W.P. No. 1684 of 1977, filed by Haqiqat Singh. The main judgment was given in C.W.P. No. 415 of 1977, Sadda Singh v. State of Punjab. Feeling aggrieved, Haqiqat Singh and others filed several letters patent appeals. The number of appeal of Haqiqat Singh was L.P.A. No. 299 of 1980. The bunch of letters patent appeals was decided by a common judgment dated 15th May 1980. The main judgment being rendered in L.P.A. No. 143 of 1980, Sarwan Singh v. The State of Punjab and others. All the appeals were dismissed as being without any merit. Thereafter, Haqiqat Singh filed S.L.P. 7137 of 1980 in the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Letters Patent Bench of this Court and got stay and it appears that ultimately he was granted leave to appeal in the Supreme Court, and the appeal was numbered as C.A. No. 344 of 1983 which was dismissed on 12th September, 1983, on account of non-appearance of the counsel for the appellant and the state order was vacated and a direction was issued that the order of the Supreme Court be executed by all concerned.

(3.) While the writ petition was still pending before a Single Judge of this Court, Smt. Kuldip Kaur wife of Haqiqat Singh aforesaid, filed a Civil suit against Haqiqat Singh to claim ownership of site and construction thereon in which her husband conceded her claim and she got a decree on 12th March, 1979. After dismissal of the appeal of Haqiqat Singh by the Supreme Court, when the matter was ripe to demolish the unauthorised structure, Smt. Kuldip Kaur filed a civil suit on 20th December, 1983, i.e. about three months after the rejection of appeal by the Supreme Court, to challenge the demolition proceedings on the plea that she was the owner of the property on the basis of Civil Court decree dated 12th March, 1979 and challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner substantially on the same grounds on which her husband had challenged and failed up to the Supreme Court. It is important to notice that she did not mention that her husband, Haqiqat Singh filed writ petition, letters patent appeal or appeal in the Supreme Court. She was also in obtaining successful ad interim injunction order. That suit was dismissed in default on 29th April, 1985 and the application for setting aside the order was filed on 30th April, 1985 under Order 9, Rule 9 of the C.P.C. That application was dismissed in default on 31st March, 1986. On that very day, another application was filed for restoration of the application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 of the C.P.C. which was allowed on 16th April, 1986 on payment of costs of Rs. 250/- to be deposited in Court that very day. But the costs of Rs. 250/- were not deposited in Court on that day and due to default in payment of costs, the application was dismissed by a separate order of the same date.