High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Shyam Sunder Ahuja v. Sri Shasank Jain & Others - MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 580 of 2007  RD-AH 11948 (13 July 2007)
Civil Misc. Application No. 580 of 2007
Shyam Sunder Ahuja ... ... ... ......... Petitioner
Sri Shasank Jain and others ......... ......... ......... ..... Respondent
Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J
A suit No. 350 of 2007 has been filed by respondent no.1 against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Vice Chairman, Muzaffarnagar Development Authority restraining them from allotting the shops in dispute to any other person. In the suit an application for temporary injunction was filed by the plaintiff respondent no.1 Shasank Jain in which respondent no.1 Shasank Jain claimed to be in possession. A temporary injunction that the shops already allotted to the plaintiff respondent be not allotted to any other person was granted by the trial court. Against that order an appeal was preferred by Muzafarnagar Development Authority. In the said appeal an order was passed on the basis of a compromise arrived at by which Muzafar Nagar Development Authority has been directed to sell shop Nos. 7-G and 8-G to the plaintiff respondent no.1 Shasank Jain. The petitioner Shyam Sunder Ahuja has filed the present writ petition against the order of the courts below.
I have heard Sri Ashok Mehta counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Nipun Singh for respondent No.1 and S/Sri P.K. Singh and Rajesh Pandey for respondent No. 2.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appellate order is in conflict with a previous order passed in writ petition No. 12347 of 2007 in which an interim order was passed on 3.4.2001 in favour of the petitioner for not allotting the shop No. 8-G. Copy of the order has been filed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition. The said interim order is to the effect that shop No. G-8 shall not be allotted, if it has not already been allotted in favour of any other person pursuant to the order dated 18.11.2000 impugned in the said writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no allotment in favour of the respondent till then.
Counsel for the Development Authority and counsel for the plaintiff-respondent no.1 made two submissions. Firstly that the petitioner has no right to challenge the order passed on compromise in a suit in which he is not a party. Secondly that the compromise was not in violation of the interim order passed in writ petition no. 12347 of 2007 inasmuch as the the shops in question were allotted to him even before the interim order was passed. The operative portion of the impugned order contains a recital that the shops have already been allotted to respondents. The question involves determination of facts
It is not in dispute that the petitioner is not a party in the compromise or in the suit from which the present writ petition arises. Counsel for the petitioner conceded that till date he has not applied for any impleadment. The order based on compromise is binding only on the parties to the compromise in the suit. The petitioner is neither a party to the compromise nor is he a party in the suit. If the rights of the petitioner are affected it is open to him to apply for impleadment in the suit or to file a separate suit in which the rights of the parties can be adjudicated upon. The present writ petition as such is not an appropriate remedy.
Counsel for the petitioner states that it may be clarified that the order dismissing the present writ petition may not come in his way of taking appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. It is therefore made clear that it is open to the petitioner to apply for impleadment in the suit or to file a separate suit or to take any other proceeding in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.