Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the records.
This writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to issue writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the proceedings of Regular Suit No. 68/2012 Mohammad Ahmad v. Khan Mohammad & Others pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Kaiserganj, District Bahraich, on the ground that the writ petition No. 6721 of 2011 was filed byh Gaon Sabha for taking action against the persons who have obtained unauthorized possession over Gaon Sabha land in which the Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3 were parties, in which certain directions were issued on 12.07.2011, contained in Annexure No. 1. In view of the directions passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the Gaon Sabha made an application to the District Magistrate, Bahraich for taking action against Opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 under Section 122B U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. there are no allegations that all the plaintiffs of the Regular Suit were parties to the writ petition, and, as such, they are not bound by the orders of the Division Bench of this court, nor there are any allegations that the plaintiffs have filed the suit before the learned Trial Court without disclosing any cause of action. Para 2 of the plaint says that the disputed land is the part of his house and Sahan and the then Pradhan has granted lease of land lying in Plot No. 649 on 20.01.1989. The present Pradhan is from his opposite camp and, as such, he is inimical with the plaintiff.
My attention was drawn towards law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Anand Swarup Chaudhary v. Small Causes Court, Faizabad and Ors. reported in [2011 (29) LCD 1684], in which it was held:-
"It also cannot be overlooked that if the petitioners are required to get an answer from the Trial Court to such an issue about maintainability of the suit, where the Trial Court would either reject the plaint or otherwise would proceed to hear the matter not being satisfied with the aforesaid plea raised, but in either case, the orders passed are bound to be challenged in superior forums by the aggrieved person, where again it is not known as to how much time it will take in getting the issue finally decided. Litigation has to be expedited and there has to be an end to all such proceedings. The High Court would not desist itself in interfering in a matter like the present one, nor for the sake of arguments that the matter should have been dealt with before the learned Trial Court first. If the High Court is satisfied that the plaintiffs do not disclose any cause of action and there cannot be finding with respect to the claim of the plaintiffs, namely, the present opposite parties in the suits filed by them and that legally they cannot get any share by any stretch of imagination on their own pleading in their suits, it has the power to quash all proceedings in the pending suits in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
In exercise of the powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot abrogate, annul or rescind the rights of an Indian citizen to approach the Civil Court of original jurisdiction, as enshrined in Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure nor the constitutional powers override the powers available to a citizen to approach the Civil Court, unless there is gross violation of the Constitution or laws framed thereunder.
The petitioners have not moved any application before the learned Trial Court for rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. Without resorting to the judicial forum, the petitioners have directly approached this Court which cannot capture or override, overlap or prevail over the hierarchical judicial system prevailing in this Country for centuries together.
In Vishnu Awatar etc. vs. Shiv Autar and Others reported in 1980 AIR 1575, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held:-
"After all, our District Courts are easier of access for litigants, and the High Courts, especially in large States like Uttar Pradesh, are 'Untouchable' and 'unapproachable' for agrestic populations and even urban middle classes. Nor is there ground to distrust the District Judges. A hierarchy of courts built upon a heritage of disbelief in inferiors has an imperial flavour. If we suspect a Munsif and put a District Judge over him for every thing he does, if we distrust a District Judge and vest the High Court with pervasive supervision, if we be skeptical about the High Courts and watch meticulously over all their orders, the system will break down as its morale will crack up. A psychic communicable disease of suspicion, skepticism and servility cannot make for the health of the judicial system. If the Supreme Court has a super-Supreme Court above it, who knows how many of its verdicts will survive, judging by the frequency with which it differs from itself.
In an earlier decision in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal AIR 1977, Supreme Court 2421, The Hon'ble Apex Court has held:-
"We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the court repeatedly and unrepentently resorted to. From the statement of the facts found in the judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now pending before the First Munsif's Court Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful nor formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and merit-less, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clear drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nit it iin the bud in the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order X C.P.C. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The Trial Courts would insist imperatively on examining the party as the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage."
In view of the law, as discussed above, and, in view of the fact, that Regular Suit No. 68/2012 has been filed by five persons whose houses are situated over Plot No. 649, which is recorded as 'BANJAR', the petitioners have filed this writ petition against only two of them and, maneouvred to obtain favourable orders of this Court on the strength of the law laid down in Anand Swarup Chaudhary's case(supra) and have used the orders dated 12.07.2011 in W.P. No. 6721 of 2011 as a camouflage in a tricky manner. The petitioners have blamed the learned Trial Court for adopting "delaying tactics", but Regular Suit No. 68/2012 has been filed on 21.01.2012 and, the petitioners have not disclosed as to when they have put in appearance or not before the Learned Trial Court and; have or have not moved any application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. The petitioners have not moved any application before the learned Trial Court, the writ petition is devoid of merits which deserves to be thrown away. Courts of law should be careful enough to see, through such diabolical plans of a litigant, there should not be any lapse which may automatically result in encouragement to frivolous and cantankerous litigations causing law's delay and bringing bad name to the judicial system. The sharp practice of legerdemain of the petitioner to make the court process with judicial seals brutamfulmen. The long arm of the law must throttle such litigative caricatures, if the confidence and credibility of the community is to survive.
The petitioners, being defendants in Regular Suit No. 68/2012, pending in the Court of Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Qaiserganj, District- Bahraich may well approach the learned Trial Court and move an application to this effect. The learned Trial Court may, accordingly, dispose of the application or may or may not reject the plaint as the case may be, depending upon the findings of the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court is seized with a matter in which it has to be determined as to whether the plaintiffs have been legally allotted part or any parts of plot No. 649 for Abadi i.e. constructing the house on a 'Banjar' land, under Section 122-C of U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act by the Land Management Committee. In case of failure before the learned Trial Court, the petitioners may approach the Learned District Judge or the Revisional Court, as the case may be. But directly filing this writ petition is deprecated. Such type of litigative aerobatics and stunts in the air are not permissible under the Indian Judicial System. In my opinion, this is one of those rare cases where the filing of the present writ petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court of the highest order.
With these observation, the writ petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioners to approach the learned Trial Court for quick relief.
Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned District Judge, Bahraich.
Order Date :- 30.8.2012 Nitesh