Dismissed

Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited v. Sri Manshapurna Hanuman Murti Virajman Mandir and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Feb 2019A227/362/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227 challenging a trial court order rejecting the plaint in a property suit, the High Court dismissed the petition. It held that the issue of public premises and bar under the Public Premises Act is for trial on evidence and no infirmity was found in the impugned order.

What the court decided

AI extract

Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited Vs Sri Manshapurna… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 362 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited Respondent :- Sri Manshapurna Hanuman Murti Virajman Mandir And 3 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Pranjal Mehrotra

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.

¶8

The present petition is directed against the order dated 17.11.2018 passed by the trial court namely Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/Small Causes Court, Jhansi, in Original Suit No.682 of 2013 (new number O.S. No.137 of 2018). By means of the order impugned, the application 23-C filed by the defendants seeking rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground of the suit being barred by Section 15 of the Public Premises Act' 1971 has been rejected.

¶9

The trial court has categorically recorded that the question as to whether the suit property is a "public premises" and that the defendants have a right over the same, for the fact of it being acquired and possession having been delivered to them, is a question to be decided on the evidence by the parties. Even otherwise, the Division Bench of this Court has directed for early disposal of the suit on merits.

¶10

Challenging this order, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the suit property has been acquired for the user by the beneficiary i.e. Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited, Khailar, Jhansi. The fact of acquisition of the suit property has been brought on record of the suit by means of the written statement filed by the defendants. As to the question of title involved in the instant suit, no submission could be made.

¶11

It is evident from the reading of the plaint that the plaintiffs have come up with the clear case that the suit property belongs to them and they are owner in possession of the same and the defendants are illegally interfering in their possession. The said issue can be adjudicated by the trial court on the issues framed by it, considering the dispute raised by the parties on the evidence led by them in the instant suit. The plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC because, there is no admission of the defendants, of the suit property being a "public premises" or they being tenant or lessee thereof. The bar of Section 15 of the Act' 1971 therefore, cannot be asserted to seek rejection of plaint.

¶12

For the aforesaid, no infirmity is found in the order impugned.

¶13

The present petition is found devoid of merits and hence dismissed.

¶14

It is expected that the trial court shall make all endeavour to decide the suit, as expeditiously as possible, keeping in view of the direction of the Division Bench in the judgement and order dated 19.01.2018, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.

¶15

Order Date :- 22.2.2019 Himanshu

Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited v. Sri Manshapurna Hanuman Murti Virajman Mandir and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited v. Sri Manshapurna Hanuman Murti Virajman Mandir and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharatpur Royal Religious and Ceremonial Trust Vs District Judge Mathura and 38 Others

Mehsar Ali Khan and Another Vs Mohammad Raza and 6 Others

Babu Lal Vs Additional District Judge Court No. 12 and 2 Others

Guddu @ Satya Prakash Sachan and Another Vs Smt. Rajeshwari and Another

Bhola Prasad Vs Ram Dayal and Another

Smt. Premsheela Rai Vs State of U.P. and Another