Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31378 of 2019 Petitioner :- Satyendra Singh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P Through D.M. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Karan Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard Sri K.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.K. Mishra, learned Advocate appearing for respondent no.2, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1 and perused the record.
By means of this petition, the petitioner has virtually claimed relief of injunction in respect of his possession over plot no. 3214 with an area of plot no. 0.947 hectare, plot no. 1974 area 0.130 hectare, plot no. 3224 area 0.239 hectare, plot no. 3225 area 0.308 heactare which are admittedly agricultural holdings. The petitioner has already instituted a suit bearing no. 431 of 2018 for prohibitory injunction.
From the pleadings that have come to be raised, it clearly transpires that the petitioner has also moved an application under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. From the perusal of the plaint it is also revealed that both the respondents in this petition have been impleaded as defendants in the suit.
Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent- Corporation has submitted that the petitioner has already filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No. 14715 of 2019 which this Court decline to entertain by passing the following order on 26.4.2019:-
"Heard Sri Karan Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.
The petitioners by means of this petition seeks a direction upon the respondents not to interfere in his peaceful possession over the land in question and that they should be restrained from taking any action during pendency of the Civil Suit No. 431 of 2018 in regard to the land in dispute.
Since the petitioner has already preferred civil suit and the same is pending, the petitioner may very well apply for interim injunction therein and seek necessary protection.
Accordingly, we do not feel it appropriate to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction in this petition.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed."
We find that the petitioner has conveniently concealed the factum of filing of the earlier writ petition and we see no justification for filing the second writ petition concealing the material fact of dismissal of earlier writ petition. The petitioner has not come with clean hands and, therefore, is not entitled for any equitable relief. However, we cannot permit any litigant to play with law and the manner in which the second writ petition speaks volume about mischievous game of hide and seek at the end of the petitioner. The Court's time is for public justice and it is quite precious one to be preserved for those, who are in que waiting for their turn for justice in respect of their genuine claims and protection of rights. The Apex Court in the case of Ram Rameshwari Devi and others v. Nirmala Devi and others, (2011) 8 SCC 249 has observed that "in order to curb uncalled for and frivolous litigation, the courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive for uncalled for litigation. It is a matter of common experience that court's otherwise scarce and valuable time is consumed or more appropriately, wasted in a large number of uncalled for cases".
In view of the above, we are dismissing this writ petition with exemplary cost that we quantify as Rs. 25,000/- to be paid by the petitioner within eight weeks from today failing which it will be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
(Ajit Kumar, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 26.9.2019 Shiraz