INDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter referred to as 'the Code') is directed against the order dated 17-4-2001 passed by the learned Sub-Judge Ist Class (1), Paonta Sahib, whereby an application of the petitioner plaintiff (hereafter referred to as the pettioner) and pro forma respondents Nos. 2 and 3, plaintiffs (hereafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs') under Section 80(2) of the Code for grant of leave to sue the respondent-defendant/State (hereafter referred to as 'the defendant') without prior service of notice under Section 80 of the Code has been dismissed.

(2.) The plaintiffs intended to institute a suit against the defendant for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from demolishing the residential house of the plaintiffs or part thereof situate in Khasra No. 345/217/1 measuring 0-3 bighas situate in village Shubh Khera, Tehsil Paonta, District Sirmaur, on the strength of an order of ejectment passed by the concerned Revenue Officer under Section 163 of the H. P. Land Revenue Act. Apprehending that the house may be dismantled by the concerned Officers and the servants of the defendant with the assistance of the police immediately after 24-3-2001 when some officials had visited the spot with a view to demolish the house and eject the plaintiffs from the suit property, plaintiffs moved an application on 31-3-2001 under Section 80(2) of the Code for grant of permission to institute the suit without service of a notice under Section 80 of the Code on the defendant. An application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code was also intended to be filed seeking interim relief of restraining the defendant from demolishing the house of the plaintiffs and from ejecting them therefrom.

(3.) The application was resisted by the defendant which filed a reply inter alia asserting that the application is not maintainable and the suit sought to be filed has become time barred. On merits it was averred that the ejectment order sought to be executed against the defendant is a valid order and has become final.