S.S. Sodhi, J. - (1.) THE controversy here is whether the writ petition from which this special appeal arises, is cognizable by a single or Division Bench. The circumstances relevant to the point in issue are that in 1984 a suit for eviction, being S.C. Suit 8 of 1984, was filed by Shatrughan and others against Himmat Singh, the father of the two present appellants, namely, Dinesh Singh and Anil Singh. This suit was ultimately decreed, with the decree being upheld by the Supreme Court too, when the Special Leave petition against it was dismissed on October 29, 1993.
(2.) WHEN the Decree -holders took -out execution of the decree, the appellants Dinesh Singh and Anil Singh as also their father Himmat Singh, the Judgment -debtor, on November 11, 1993 filed suit 1889 of 1993 seeking a declaration that the decree sought to be executed was illegal. A permanent injunction was also prayed for, to restrain the Decree -holder from evicting them in pursuance of the decree. On the filing of the suit, the trial court granted an exparte injunction to the appellants in terms of the prayer in the plaint. On appeal, the operation of this exparte injunction was stayed but this appeal was eventually dismissed on January 21, 1994. It is this order that has been challenged in writ proceedings.
(3.) THE writ petition as filed was admittedly, even as per the counsel for the appellants Mr. V.C. Mishra, cognizable by a Single Judge. What it is, contended changed the complexion of these proceedings rendering them cognizable by a Division Bench was, according to the appellants, the amendment allowed, enabling the writ petition to also seek a mandamus for quashing the plaint in the suit filed by the appellants namely, suit 1889 of 1993. This is indeed a contention wholly devoid of merit.;