MUNSHI SHAH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the writ petitions arise in identical background, agitate a common question and are thus being decided by this common order. SBCWP No. 11903/2013 is the leading case for reference to the necessary facts. The writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:

(2.) A perusal of the writ petition indicate that in SBCWP No. 15849/2010, Sevar Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Vs. Munshi Shah & Anr. and three other connected matters, this Court vide order dt. 24.02.2011 recorded the undertaking of Sevar Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti Ltd. (now respondent No. 3 before this Court) not to evict Munshi Shah (now the petitioner before this Court) from the tenanted premises without following the provisions of law. This Court further directed that the Sevar Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti Ltd. would only be entitled to evict the petitioner as per law. The said order has attained finality. It further transpires from the file of the present writ petition that the petitioner had approached the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bharatpur and vide order dt. 23.11.2012, the Civil Judge directed on the petitioner's application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC that in the pending suit, the petitioner Munshi Shah, who was the plaintiff before the Civil Court, would not be dispossessed without due process of law.

(3.) IN my considered opinion, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere in the present writ petition. The prayer in the writ petition now agitated has already been granted by this Court in its judgment dt. 24.02.2011 in SBCWP No. 15849/2010. Reference to which has been made hereinabove. And the petitioner has already filed reply to the notice of the Tehsildar, Bharatpur detailing all the facts with regard to the protection by this Court as also Civil Court. The Tehsildar, Bharatpur no doubt would have due regard to the order of this Court passed in SBCWP No. 15849/2010 and in the event the same were to be overlooked, it is on the Tehsildar's own peril. If wronged and the order dt. 24.02.2011 in SBCWP No. 15849/2010, overlooked and disobeyed, the petitioner would be free to take his proceedings in law including for contempt of the order aforesaid.