- (1.) K. L. Sharma, J. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 1. 6. 1994, passed by the opposite party No. 2 and the judgment dated 25. 3. 1995 passed by the opposite party No. 1 in the execution of Form 'd' issued under U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
(2.) I have heard Sri P. C. Agarwal, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 3 and Sri B. K. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the opposite parties 1 and 2 and perused the record. It appears necessary to refer briefly to the chequered history of litigation relating to the present writ petition. The dispute relates to house No. 403/5-Ka, Katra Bijan Beg, Chaupatian, P. S. Saadatganj, Lucknow. Admittedly, this house originally belonged to Smt. Shiv Radha Devi who died leaving Sit a Devi and Sundar Devi as two daughters. Admittedly, Shiv Radha Devi executed a gift-deed on 23. 7. 1945 in favour of her daughter Smt. Sundar Devi wife of Shn Siddha Nath Awasthi. Admittedly, Siddha Nath Awasthi had two wives and Sundar Devi was the second one who had no issue. From his first wife, Siddha Nath Awasthi had one son named Uma Shanker Awasthi. The opposite party No. 3 is admittedly, the son of Uma Shanker Awasthi. Smt. Sundar Devi died leaving no issue of her own, on 13. 8. 1981. Smt. Sita Devi died leaving a son Shri Lov Kumar Dixit. The present petitioner Smt. Gita Devi is the daughter of Shri Lov Kumar Dixit. She claims that Smt. Sundar Devi had executed a Will on 11. 8. 1981 in respect of a portion of the said house in her favour and as such she became owner of the said portion of the property, after the death of Smt. Sundar Devi on 13. 8. 1981. The opposite party No. 3 Shri Jagdish Narain Awasthi had filed an application for release of the accommodation in his favour under Section 16 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. This application was opposed by Smt. Gita Devi, the present petitioner but after hearing both the parties the Prescribed Authority rejected all the contentions of Smt. Gita Devi, the present petitioner and passed the order of release by eviction of Smt. Gita Devi, the present petitioner by holding the claim of the opposite party No. 3, Shri Jagdish Narain Awasthi as the landlord and as genuine and bona fide. Smt. Gita Devi then filed a Rent Revision No. 14 of 1994 against that order of release by eviction which was dismissed alter hearing by the XIV Additional District Judge, Lucknow. The present petitioner filed a writ petition No. 2721 of 1990 against the release order dated 16. 5. 1988 and the revisipnal order dated 5. 3. 1990 passed by the Rent Control Officer and Additional District Judge, Lucknow respectively! This writ petition was heated and decided by this Court on 4. 4. 1991 by Hon. Mr. Justice R. K. Agarwal. Smt. Gita Devi then filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction in the court of Civil Judge, Lucknow on 3. 3. 1990 and also an application for temporary injunction and, an interim order was issued. This interim injunction was later on vacated by the Additional District Judge in appeal. As against that order dated 25. 3. 1995 passed by the 14th Additional District Judge, Lucknow, the present writ petition has been preferred by Smt. Gita Devi and the interim order was issued on 4. 4. 1995 prohibiting the dispossession. After perusal of the record and on hearing the submission of the learned counsel for both the parties, I find that since the matters of respective claims of both the parties have already been examined and decided in the proceedings under the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and those orders have become final after the dismissal of the writ petition New 2721 of 1990, no suit could be maintained by the present petitioner in the civil court in view of the specific bar against civil suit under Section 37 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The present petitioner who filed the civil suit as it appears from the plaint of that suit dated 3. 3. 1990 annexed to the counter affidavit accompanying the vacation application, did not make any mention whatsoever to the proceedings under the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and the pendency of the writ petition No. 2721 of 1990 filed by the plaintiff herself in the High Court. In the absence of the necessary recitals, the learned Civil Judge felt persuaded to issue the interim injunction order against dispossession. This order was challenged in appeal and after hearing of the appeal, this order was vacated by the learned Additional District Judge, Lucknow. The petitioner Smt. Gita Devi again filed this present writ petition re-agitating her claim to the property as owner which already stands adjudicated by the lower authorities and by the High Court in the earlier writ petition No. 2721 of 1990. Therefore, the second writ petition in respect of the same dispute was hit by the principle of res judicata.
(3.) IT has been submitted on behalf of the opposite party No. 3 that the execution of the orders passed by the Rent Control Officer, has reached the stage of issuance of Form 'd prescribed under that Act for eviction of the petitioner and the Rent Control Officer has again heard the objections of the petitioner Smt. Gita Devi and rejected the same vide his order by Additional District Magistrate R/c, Lucknow. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has again challenged the same order. I do not find any ground for challenge of the execution of Form 'd' issued after full contest upto the level of High Court. The petitioner has already challenged and tested the impugned order of Additional District Magistrate R/c, Lucknow by filing the Rent Revision No. 14/94 which has been rejected on 25. 3. 1995, by the Addl. District Judge, Lucknow. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and judicial determination unto the level of High Court, the second writ petition is not admitted and is liable to the dismissed. The petitioner has abused the process of law.;