DRAUPADI Vs. NARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that interest of justice demands that the matter should be sent back to the trial court for fresh decision on the application for injunction filed by the plaintiff- respondent and the application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner-Smt. Draupadi without being influenced by the orders dated 6. 1. 1984 and 9. 1. 1984 because these orders were passed at a time when Smt. Draupadi was not party to the proceedings and only Urban Improvement Trust (for short 'uit') was party to the suit and they had hardly any interest in the dispute when these orders were passed because much earlier to that UIT had sold the land in dispute to Smt. Draupadi on 4th of March,1983.

(2.) IT is not disputed that on 4th of March,1983, the UIT sold to Smt. Draupadi-petitioner,a strip of land sandwiched between the residential house of Smtdraupadi and the public road and from this road,smt. Draupadi had access to her house through this land only.

(3.) AFTER sale. UIT was left with no interest in the land in dispute and it was Smt. Draupadi alone who had to contest and she could contest only if she was made party to the suit. The two orders which resulted in dismissal of her application were passed at a time when true facts were not before the court nor Smt. Draupadi was a party. The filing of the suit for pre-emption might come to the rescue of Smt. Draupadi to take the plea of estoppel against Narayan. Once Narayan wants to pre-empt the sale made by UIT in favour of Smt. Draupadi, it can reasonably be argued by Smt. Draupadi that Narayan could file a suit for pre-emption only if he accepted the sale made in favour of Smt. Draupadi as a good sale.