Tarun Agarwala - (1.) -The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from evicting them from the office allotted to it by the Chairman Zila Panchayat Deoria. This suit was filed on 27.1.2006. An application for grant of a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C was also filed. It transpires, that the Zila Panchayat apprehended that a suit was going to be filed, therefore, it filed a caveat before the civil court. At the time of the presentation of the suit, the defendants appeared and objected to the grant of a temporary injunction. While the hearing on the application for temporary injunction was going on, the plaintiffs filed an application under Section 151 of the C.P.C. praying that the plaintiffs possession be restrained as they have been evicted by the defendants during the hearing of the injunction application. This application was rejected by an order of the trial court, pursuant to which, the plaintiffs filed a revision which was allowed by a judgment dated 27.5.2006. The revisional court, by its order, directed the defendants to give possession of the premises in question within 15 days. The defendants, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order has filed the present writ petition.
(2.) BEFORE proceeding further, it is essential to state the factual background which led to the filing of the suit. It transpires that the previous chairman of the Zila Panchayat Smt. Krishna Jaiswal made a number of allotments of shops, etc. in favour of various persons on the date when a no confidence motion was to take place against her. These allotments were made by Smt. Krishna Jaiswal on 22.2.2005. Amongst other allotments, the plaintiffs were allotted a premises, for their office purposes, by an allotment order dated 22.2.2005. Apparently, the premises in question which was allotted to the plaintiffs was none other than the official residence of the Chairman of the Zila Panchyat in which Smt. Krishna Jaiswal was residing in her official capacity as the Chairman of the Zila Panchayat. The allotment order, indicated that the possession of the premises would be given as and when the same became vacant and that the allotment would be subject to the approval by the State Government. It transpires from the record that a motion of no confidence was passed against Smt. Krishna Jaiswal on 22.2.2005 and a new Chairman took over. A notice dated 30.3.2005 was published in the newspaper cancelling all the allotments made by the previous Chairman and the allottees were directed to take back their money from the Zila Panchayat. It transpires, that the plaintiff No.2 alongwith several other allottees filed Writ Petition No. 29555 of 2005 praying for the quashing of the order dated 30.3.2005 as published in the Hindi Daily 'Dainik Jagran', dated 31.3.2005 cancelling the allotment orders. This advertisement dated 31.3.2005 also included the cancellation of the allotment of the premises of the present plaintiffs. The writ petition was dismissed by judgment dated 18.5.2005. The Division Bench held that no proper advertisement was issued with regard to the allotment. It was found that the Chairman could not execute the contract under his seal and signature and that the shops had been allotted at a throw away price. The Court held that the allotment was made in a fraudulent manner and that fraud vitiates everything and that the allottees could not be permitted to reap the fruits. The net result of the dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition was that the cancellation order dated 30.3.2005 as published in the news paper dated 31.3.2005 was upheld by this Court. It further transpires that eviction proceedings were initiated against the ex-Chairman and eventually, by a police force, the ex-Chairman was evicted from the official residence on 31.1.2006. The suit was filed on 27.1.2006 and it is alleged that during the course of the hearing of the injunction application, the plaintiffs were evicted. On the other hand, the defendants' case is that the ex-Chairman was evicted from the premises.
(3.) A perusal of the plaint indicates that the plaintiffs has not disclosed as to when they came in the possession of the premises upon the premises becoming vacant. This is a crucial fact which has not been averred by the plaintiff in their plaint. Another striking feature is that the order of the cancellation of the allotment has not been disclosed in the plaint. The plaintiffs have concealed this fact. It was in their knowledge that the allotment of the premises made by the ex-Chairman was cancelled by an order dated 30.3.2005 which was published on 31.3.2005 in the Hindi Daily "Dainik Jagran". The plaintiff No. 2 cannot escape from this fact nor can she allege that the allotment order was never cancelled. This is on account of the fact that the plaintiff No. 2 had filed a writ petition challenging the notice dated 30.3.2005 which was published in the news paper on 31.3.2005. The notice, clearly indicated at Sl. No. 24 about the cancellation of the premises in favour of the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, nondisclosure of the cancellation order was a deliberately done by the plaintiffs for vested reasons. Not only this, the litigation initiated by the plaintiff No. 2 before the High Court in a writ petition was also not disclosed. Heard Sri Namwar Singh, the learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Sanjeev Singh for the defendant-petitioners and Sri N. C. Rajvanshi, the learned senior counsel for the plaintiff-opposite parties.;