RAM DULAR SINGH SON OF LATE RAM PRASAD SINGH Vs. AKHIL BHARAT JAY GURU SAMPARDAY @ AKHILA BHARAT JAI GURU SAMPARDAY HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision has been filed for setting aside the order dated 15.01.2014 passed by learned Sub Judge-VII, Gaya in Title Suit No. 35 of 2010 by which and whereunder he rejected the petition dated 15.11.2011 filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order-VII, Rule-11 (a) and (d) of the C.P.C. seeking rejection of plaint of T.S. No. 35 of 2010.

(2.) The plaintiff-opposite party filed Title Suit No. 35/596 of 2010 on 20.09.2010 against the defendant-petitioner. The case of the plaintiff-opposite party is that a double storied building situated in Municipal Plot no. 17834(Old), Revisional Municipal Survey Plot No. 1871 (New), bearing Holding No. 21, Ward No. 7(Old), 24(New) of Mohalla Karkatta, P.S. Civil Lines, District Gaya originally owned and possessed by Late Satya Narayan Ganguli. The aforesaid Satya Narayan Ganguli died on 09.10.1961 leaving behind his widow, three sons and three daughters, who later on, on 12.09.1981, executed a registered deed of gift in favour of plaintiff-opposite party and accordingly, donated the aforesaid house to plaintiff-opposite party. After the aforesaid donation, the plaintiff-opposite party came in possession of the suit house and subsequently, plaintiff-opposite party got mutated his name in Gaya Municipality on 14.11.1986 and started paying tax to the municipality but one of the trustees of the plaintiff-opposite party came to Gaya on 04.12.1986 and found that defendant-petitioner and some other persons, unauthorizedly, encroached the premises of the house in question after breaking and opening the locks of door of the donated house. The plaintiffopposite party approached the Sub-divisional Officer, Sadar, Gaya who subsequently, ordered to evict the defendant-petitioner and accordingly, the defendant-petitioner was forcibly evicted from the said house and vacant possession of the said house was given to the plaintiff-opposite party on 16.06.1987. The defendant-petitioner approached the Collector, Gaya, who stayed the order of Subdivisional Officer, Sadar, Gaya and in the light of order of the Collector, Gaya he again entered in the aforesaid house with the help of police and Magistrates. Thereafter, plaintiff-opposite party again filed a petition on 27.02.1989 before the District Magistrate, Gaya, who vide his order dated 31.12.1991 disposed of the aforesaid petition holding that parties may go to the Civil Court for appropriate relief. The plaintiff-opposite party approached this Court by filing writ petition but the same was disposed of holding that said petition was without jurisdiction. The parties also started fighting the matter before the revenue authorities to get their name mutated in revenue records. However, the plaintiff-opposite party filed Title Suit No. 153 of 1993 in the court of Sub Judge, Gaya against the defendantpetitioner for declaration of his title, recovery of possession of the disputed house and for recovery of damage. The plaintiff-opposite party averred in the plaint of Title Suit No 35 of 2010 that after filing of Title Suit No 153 of 1993, defendant-petitioner approached the Mukhtar-e-Aam of the plaintiff-opposite party and offered for compromise and accordingly, he agreed to pay damage of Rs. 5000/- in cash and also agreed to pay Rs. 50/- as rent per month. The plaintiff-opposite party due to above stated oral compromise left the pairvi of Title Suit No 153 of 1993 and also left pairvi before revenue authorities as a result whereof, Title Suit No 153/93 dismissed in default on 06.01.2000. It has further been averred in the plaint that pairvikar of the plaintiff-opposite party fell seriously ill and went to Calcutta in connection with his treatment and having got cured in the month of April, 2004, he came to Gaya and met the defendantpetitioner.

(3.) The summons was issued to defendant-petitioner who appeared before the Sub Judge, Gaya and filed petition under OrderVII, Rule-11 (a) and (d) of the C.P.C for rejection of plaint of Title Suit No 35/2010 on the ground that originally, Title Suit No 153/93 was filed for same relief as well as for same cause of action and the aforesaid suit was dismissed under Order-IX, Rule-8 of the C.P.C and, therefore, fresh suit was not maintainable Order- IX, Rule-9 of the C.P.C and furthermore, on the ground that Title Suit No 35/2010 is highly time barred.