SURINDER MOHAN Vs. PRITAM KAUR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The cause for two civil revisions: 1. The above two petitions invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking for rejection of the respective plaints filed before the Courts below. The petitioner has not adopted the procedure of filing a written statement or seeking for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC but have come directly to this Court by pointing out that the suits filed and pending before the respective Courts are wholly vexatious and constitute an abuse of process of Court, having regard to the finality that has obtained as regards the very same property between the same parties or persons who are close privies to parties.

(2.) Civil Revision No. 6225 of 2002 has been filed seeking for dismissal of the suit filed by one Ms. Pritam Kaur widow of Mohan Singh for declaration that she is the joint owner of the property with the 4th respondent-Baldev Singh and not to execute the Judgment and decree dated 17.05.2001 in favour of the defendants No. 1 and 2, who were Surender Mohan and Amar Vivek Aggarwal. This suit is pending before the Additional Civil Judge, Kharar, District Ropar. Civil Revision No. 5373 of 2004 seeking for a similar relief of quashing of the suit instituted by Pritam Kaur widow of Mohan Singh for specific performance of a contract alleged to have been executed on 23.06.1990 between the husband Mr. Mohan Singh and Surender Mohan, the defendant in respect of the property in House No. 14, Ph-II, Mohali, District Ropar. In the said suit also, the plaintiffs son Baldev Singh is arrayed as a party defendant.

(3.) The plenary powers of the Court endowed on this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, by the very nature that its wide amplitude, shall be exercised with due restraint. In view of the attempt of the revision petitioner to strike off the plaints without going through the usual process of allowing the parties to file the written statement and letting the trial Court to decide one way or the other, the attempt of the petitioner is to show that the Judgment Debtor in an earlier round of litigation, who faced with the prospect of delivering up the property, has adopted a questionable method of harassing the Decree-holder by instituting suits through his mother. The contention of the petitioner is that the Judgment Debtor is a Police Officer and he was trying to use his own official status to cause the vexatious suits to be filed. II. History of earlier litigation: