SUKHMA DEVI Vs. RAMESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been directed against order dated 18.3.1997 passed by the learned District Judge, Bhiwani. By this order, learned District Judge, Bhiwani, has reversed the order passed by the 1d. trial Court and has held that since the petitioner/tenant has suppressed the facts with regard to eariler suit filed by her which was dismissed by the learned trial court vide order dated 30.9.1992, the petitioner was not entitled to any relief under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having persued the impugned order, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the well reasoned order passed by the learned District Judge, Bhiwani. Admittedly, the petitioner had earlier filed suit seeking the same relief and in that suit, vide order dated 30.9.1992, the application filed by her seeking ad interim injunction was vacated after hearing the learned counsel of both the parties. Since the fact with regard to eariler suit was suppressed by the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the learned lower appellate Court has rightly held that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The observations made herein above, however, shall not have any bearing on the merits of the case. I further direct the learned trial Court to expedite the disposal of the suit, preferably within six months from today. Petition dismissed.