Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
Issue notice to the opposite party calling upon him to explain as to why did he institute Suit No. 207 of 2017 without referring to a suit which had been filed twenty days earlier by him for the same cause of action being Suit No. 164 of 2017 where the defendant therein are also the defendants in the subsequent suit i.e. 207 of 2017. The Court has gone through the copies of the plaint of the two suits which are on record and it is after considering the aforesaid concealment of the filing of the earlier suit in respect of the same property that the trial court on 5th May, 2018 rejected the injunction application on 5th May, 2018.
On a miscellaneous appeal being filed, the learned District Judge, Ghazipur has reversed the order of the trial court on the ground that since the name of the plaintiff is recorded over the said land which appears to be Bhoomidari being Plot No. 1150, Area 0.163 hectare, therefore, prima facie the plaintiff being the recorded tenure holder was entitled to an injunction.
It appears that the appellate court has nowhere reversed the findings of the trial court with regard to the concealment of the filing of the earlier suit by the plaintiff-Kalam which is apparently for the same cause of action and for the same relief wherein paragraph no. 10 of the plaint, the plaintiff-Kalam has admitted the construction of two rooms and the placement of a Chappar forcibly by the defendant. The relief claimed in the said suit is for removal of the unauthorized construction over the said land. This fact, was therefore, a relevant fact in issue on the same subject matter and prima facie the filing of the second suit is nothing else but a clear abuse of the process of court, and therefore, the trial court rightly appears to have refused injunction which aspect has been completely omitted to be considered by the learned District Judge while passing the impugned order on 12th July, 2018 in the miscellaneous appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff.
In the said background, a prima facie case is clearly made out for interference in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Let the respondent file a response to this writ petition. Until further orders of the Court, the parties are directed to maintain status quo on the spot. The issue with regard to the nature of the relief to be considered by this Court shall be assessed after exchange of affidavits.
A copy of this order shall be sent to the Registrar General of this Court and on the administrative side, the learned District Judge shall submit his explanation in this regard through him for a perusal by this Court.
Order Date :- 27.10.2018 S.Chaurasia