STATE OF U.P. & ANR. versus JAGDISH SARAN AGRAWAL. & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 16 S.C.R. 629 · Decided: 25-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008) 16 S.C.R. 629 
' ..... 
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 
. 5 
._. 
•• o' 
II. 
'.. 
., 
... JAGDISH SARAN AGRAWAL. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6757 ~675e of. 2008) 
NOVEMBER 25; 2008 
~ 
• I 
' 
.; 
l.. 
' 
,;f 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAl\ll .'.:« 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
, . · · · 
.·Code of Civil Prqcedure, 1908: 
s. 11 -
Res judicata -
Dismissal of suit for non-
prosecution - Held: Not a decision on merit and consequently· 
can~ot operate as re~judicata. 
A 
B. 
" 
c 
U.P. Public 'Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized· 
Occupants) Act, 1971 -
Case by State before Prescribed D 
Authority for eviction - Dismissed for non-prosecution -
Applicability of Or. 9, r. 9 .:.. Held: Not applicable, since the case 
was not dismissed under Or. 9 r.8 ..:.. Code of Civil Procedure, 
1908- Or.9, r.9. 
The land in question was purportedly owned by the 
State of Uttar Pradesh and under the management· of the 
Nagar Palika. The Nagar Palika filed suit No. 25 of 1960 
E 
in the court of Munsif for permanent injunction in respect 
ofthe.said land. The said suit, in which the State of Uttar 
F 
._ 
Pradesh was not a party, was dismissed. Subsequently, 
the State of Uttar Pradesh initiated proceedings in respect 
of the land under th'erU.P. Public· Land (Eviction and 
Recovery of Rent and Damages) Act, 1959, numbered as 
Case No. 521 of 1970. The proceedings were dismissed 
G 
for non-prosecution. Thereafter the State of Uttar Pradesh 
~. 
initiated proceedings (Case No. 111988-89) under the U.P. 
Public Premises (Evic.tion of Unauthorized Occupants) 
! 
.Act, 1971. The preliminary objection raised.by the alleged 
629 
H 
630 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 
A unauthorized occupants that the proceedings were 
barred by the principles of res judicata ln view of the 
orders passed in the·Case No .. 521 of' 1910-ahd Suit No. 
25of1960 as-well as on·the principles QfOr.9~, r.9, CPC, 
was rejected by the _presc:ribed. A4thor!ty. The appeal filed 
B by respondents was allowed by the Oistrict Judge. Writ 
petitions ,fifed by the:. State .and the Nagar j;l.alika were 
dismissed by the High Court.· Aggrieved, the writ 
petitioners filed the in'stant appeals. 
Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to the 
C District Judge to decide the proceedings 6n merits, the 
Court 
· \ 
HELD: The suit filed by Nagar Palika was dismissed 
on technical ground and in any case the State was not a 
D party the.reto. So far the case wherein the State was a 
party and, amendments were made, the same was 
dismissed f9r non-ptosecu~ion, but it was not dis.n:iissed . 
under. Or.9 ·r.8, Ct'C. therefore,. Or.9, r~9, CPC_ cati.IJOf be 
said to be applicable. The dismissal of the case .fol• no'1-
E prosecution was not a decision on rherits. Consequently, 
t'1e said order cannot operate as res judicaJa. [Paras 13, 
15] [638-.A .. B, H; 639-A]. 
• 
\ 
• 
< 
• 
\ 
1, 
'i. 
. Ram Gobinda Dawan v. Bhaktab,aia 1971 (1) SCC 387; 
F Staie. of UP.'v. C[vi/'Judge (1SS6) 4 sec 558 and LSta.te of 
UP. v. Rup Lal Sharma (1997)'2 SCC 1962, ref~r.fed to._. 
. 
·-· 
.. 
.' 
. 
· Case Law Reference: · 
. 1971·(1) sec as7 
_ • ~r.eferred to 
Para 10 
G 
(1986) 4 _sec 558 
referred to . , 
. ,Para 11 
,(1997) 2 scc.19~2 
. refe~red· to 
Para'.12 
! ' 
' 
! 
-. : 
• 
~ 
. 
' . 
.... 
' 
~: . 
. ' CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION-,: Civil 'Appeal No. 
H 
y 
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. v. JAGDISH SARAN AGRAWAL & 631 
ORS. 
~ 
6757-6758 of 2008. 
A 
~ 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 5.2.2004 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in C.M.W.P. Nos. 20165 
and 21654 of 1994. 
. 
· Pramod Swarup, T.N. Singh,, Manoj Dwivedi .and G. 8 
Venkateswara Rao for the Appellants. 
-i ._ 
H.L. Aggarwal, S.R. Singh, G.S. Bhatt, P.K. Bhatt, 
f 
Rameshwar Prasad Goyal and Debasis Misra for the 
Respondents. 
c 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned D 
Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ 
petitions filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Municipal 
~ 
Board Nagar Palika Lalitpur (hereinafter referred to as the 
'Board'). Both the writ petitions were directed against the 
order dated 11th February, 1994 passed by the District E 
Judge, Lalitpur. By the said order learned District Judge 
allowed appeal No. 23 of 1992 filed by the respondent No. 1 
Jagdish Sharan Agrawal and two others. State of U.P. and 27 
others were parties. It was held in that. order that the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.