LexSANTOSH SOOD versus GAJENDRA SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 9 S.C.R. 470
_;..-
)
A
SANTOSH SOOD
v.
GAJENDRA SINGH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3601-3602 of 2009)
...._
.>---
B
MAY 15, 2009
[S.B. SINHA ANO OR. MUKUNOAKAM SHARMA, JJ.]
r-
J
Jurisdiction - Of High Court - To order eviction from a
disputed property, title suit whereof pending - In a Public
-.<-
c Interest Litigation - Without giving opportunity of hearing to
one of the parties claiming to be its owner - On the basis of
..
statements made at the 8ar...,. Held: Such order by High Court
not called for, in view of the pending suit - The other party to
)
the suit (Nagar Palika), even otherwise, after decision in the
D suit in its favour, would have been entitled to take steps for
i-
r
L
eviction - Direction issued to dispose of the pending suit
"'\.
expeditiously - Public Interest Litigation.
Appellant and respondent-Nagar Palika were on
E litigating terms. After two rounds of litigation, appellant
had filed a suit in respect of the property in question
against Nagar Palika. The suit is still pending.
I t
Appellant entered into an agreement of loan with the
-t· .
re$pondent-Bank, for construction on the disputed land,
F according to which on completion of the construction,
the building was to be given to the Bank on rent.
Respondent No. 1 filed a Public Interest Litigation
be{ore High Court seeking eviction of the premises in
G question. Respondent-Nagar Palika made a statement at
I
Bar before the High Court that the title suit by the
~
appellant had been dismissed; that Nagar Palika and
·~
cancelled the mutation entry made in favour of the
appellant; and that steps were being taken to take actual
H
470
......
L
SANTOSH SOOD v. GAJENDRA SINGH & ORS.
471
-....
possession. Respondent-Bank also made a statement A
that it was ready to pay the rent to Nagar Palika. High
Court on the basis of the statements, and without hearing
the appellant, directed Nagar Palika to take steps to
dispossess the appellant. Appellant's application for
recalling the order was dismissed. Hence the present
B
~
appeals.
-~
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court, disposed of the public
interest litigation on the basis of the statements made at c
the Bar without entering into the merit of the matter and,
thus, without resolving the controversy between the
party. There cannot, however, be any doubt whatsoever
that subject to an order passed by a competent court of
,..
law, the Nagar Palika would be entitled to take steps D
!'--
either to .execute the decree passed in its favour and/or
in terms of the provisions of the Act For the said purpose,
no order of a court of law was necessary. [Para 13] [478-
A-C]
2. If a Civil Suit was pending which may or may not
E
be frivolous, ordinarily the High Court should not have
entertained a public interest litigation. On the other hand,
t
if it was found that the civil court was not proceeding with
the matter as expeditiously as it should have, appropriate F
directions could have been issued in that behalf. It is trite
that save and except cogent reasons, the High Court, in
a public interest litigation, would not interfere with the due
process of law. If an abuse of process of court was
undertaken by a party, some finding of fact was required
G
~
to be arrived at and even a proceeding under the
Contempt of Courts Act could have been initiated. [Para
131 [478-D-Fl
The Advocate General, State of Bihar v. Madhya
Pradesh Khair Industries and Anr.; AIR 1980 SC 946 and
H
1
472
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009) 9 S.C.R.
x
}=
A Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee and Anr. v.
C.K. Rajan and Ors. 2003 (7) SCC 546, referred to.
3. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,
..
)
interest of justice would be subserved, if the following
t:
directions are issued viz. 1) The Civil Judge, must take
B up the hearing of the pending suit immediately and
J-
dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible without
-)..
granting any adjournment in the suit save and except for
sufficient and cogent reasons; 2) If no order of injunction
c has been passed against the Nagar Palika, it would be
open to it to take such steps as is permissible in law.
Parties shall, however, be at liberty to pray for interim
order or direction if found to be necessary; 3) The Bank
shall' deposit the amount of rent in the said suit which
would be disbursed by the Court to the suc~essful party
i.-
._
D subject toExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.