Single judge dismissed a civil revision challenging an interim order allowing expunging of pleadings. The court held the petition was barred by delay and found no merit on facts, citing prejudice from oral remarks and prior similar objectionable pleadings.
The revision petition challenging the interim order permitting expunging of pleadings is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Civil Revision No. 5864 of 2011 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 5864 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 1.3.2012
Jathedar Nihang Baba Avtar Singh and others
.. Petitioners
v.
Baba Balbir Singh
.. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. R. S. Bains, Advocate for the petitioners.
Rajesh Bindal J.
Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 23.9.2010, passed by the learned court below, whereby two applications filed by the plaintiffs/ petitioners were dismissed and one filed by the defendant, was allowed.
The claim in the suit filed by the plaintiffs, who claim to be NGOs exclusively owned by The Sikh Educational Society of Shiromani Budha Dal (Panjwa Takhat), Patiala is that Budha Dal Public School, Patiala; Budha Dal Junior Wing, Patiala and Budha Dal Public School, Samana (petitioners No. 2 to 4) have forcibly been occupied by the respondent-defendant, who is interfering in the administration of petitioners No. 2 to 4 without any right. The suit has been filed through the next friend of petitioners No. 2 to 4, namely, Jathedar Nihang Baba Avtar Singh (petitioner No. 1). He has been impleaded as plaintiff No. 4 as well in the suit.
One application filed by the plaintiffs was under Order 8 Rule 1A CPC for ignoring the documents produced by the defendant and to get the same examined from an expert for their genuineness. Another
Civil Revision No. 5864 of 2011 [2]
application was filed by them for summoning the original register karwai from the defendant and for sealing the same and third application was filed by the defendant under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC for expunging unnecessary pleadings in the application filed by the plaintiffs. First two applications were dismissed as pre-mature, whereas third application for expunging the pleadings was allowed and the objectionable material was directed to be expunged. A common order was passed by the court below on 23.9.2010.
The present petition was filed in this court for the first time on 9.2.2011 without there being any prayer for treating the same as urgent even though the petition challenges an order passed by the court below during the pendency of suit at interim stage. The petition remained in objections and finally re-filed after removing objections on 5.9.2011. It was listed in the court for the first time on 30.11.2011 and was adjourned to 25.1.2012. On that date, the same was again adjourned on the request of learned counsel for the petitioners for today.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he is only challenging the impugned order qua the acceptance of application filed by the defendant regarding expunging the pleadings in the application filed by the plaintiffs, as there was nothing objectionable, as merely facts had been stated. In case, the pleadings are expunged at this stage, the same may prejudice his prayer to that effect at any subsequent stage as the entire case is based upon those pleadings. Explaining the delay in filing the petition and also through ordinary process, it was submitted that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, there is no limitation prescribed for filing of a petition in this court and no objection to that effect can be raised. Filing of a petition challenging an order in about six months cannot be said to be delayed. The petition was filed ordinary as no interim relief was prayed for. However, it was not disputed that any order passed in the present petition may effect the proceedings in the suit, which are continuing, but may not be at the interim stage as the final judgment may be effected.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the paper book.
Civil Revision No. 5864 of 2011 [3]
In my opinion, the petition deserves to be dismissed on account of delay as well as on merits. The impugned order was passed by the court below on 23.9.2010. The petition was filed in this court by ordinary process on 9.2.2011. It remained in objections and finally objections were removed on 5.9.2011. It was listed for the first time in court on 30.11.2011. The same was adjourned to 25.1.2012. Thereafter, it was adjourned on the request of learned counsel for the petitioners for today. The proceedings in the suit are continuing. It cannot be disputed that if an order passed by the court below at an interim stage is challenged before the higher court, the order passed by the higher court will certainly effect the proceedings in the court below, in case the same is set aside. Any challenge to such an order has to be at the earliest. It always shows the bonafide of a person whether he is taking the matter seriously or it is a kind of luxury litigation and the petition is being filed only for the sake of it. The filing of petition nearly after five months of the passing of the order and that too through ordinary process establishes that the matter was not being taken up seriously.
Even on merits, I do not find that any illegality has been committed by the court below in allowing the application filed by the defendant directing expunging of the pleadings in the application. In the application, certain comments had been made against the conduct of the counsel and also regarding oral order passed by the court, which should not be part of the proceedings. Courts never pass oral orders. The learned court below has further noticed in the impugned order that earlier also similar type of pleadings were filed by the petitioners, which were expunged by the court vide order dated 8.8.2009.
For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge
1.3.2012 mk
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a civil revision challenging an interim order can be filed through ordinary process due to lack of statutory limitation.
Whether the lower court committed illegality in allowing the defendant's application to expunge pleadings containing remarks against the petitioner's counsel.
Whether the petition demonstrates bona fides or amounts to luxury litigation given the delay and procedural posture.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Jathedar Nihang Baba Avtar Singh and others
Baba Balbir Singh
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
