Anshuman Singh, J. - (1.) Facts giving rise to this petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India lie in a narrow campus. The petitioner is a tenant of a shop and a room in premises No. C-31/34, Englishia Line, Varanasi. Respondent No. 2 who is the landlord of the shop in dispute filed a suit for ejectment against the petitioner on the ground of arrears of rent. The defence of the petitioner tenant was struck off by the trial court. The revision filed by the petitioner against the said order failed and the revisional order was also upheld by this court. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court of India against the order passed by this court, in Special Leave Petition. When the Special Leave Petition came up for hearing before the Hon'ble Supreme Court the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by the consent of the parties, granted Special Leave and set aside the orders passed by the trial court, revisional court as well as the High Court and the matter was sent back to the trial court for deciding the trial afresh in light of guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court contained in its order dated 19-9-1983 a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. After the matter was remanded by the Supreme Court to the trial court, the trial court has decreed the suit of the landlord respondent holding the petitioner tenant defaulter and has passed a decree for a sum of Rs. 40,830/-.
(2.) The petitioner, feeling aggrieved against the said decree, has approached this court in the instant writ petition. Before deciding the controversy involved in the instant writ petition it is necessary to refer to clause 7 of the order passed by the Supreme Court of India dated 19-9-1983 which runs as under: "The decision of the trial court shall be binding on both the parties. No further appeal or revision shall lie against the decision of the trial court." Mr. Siddheshwari Prasad, learned Senior Council appearing for the petitioner vehemently urged before me that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order had deprived the petitioner of his right of filing an appeal or revision but the Supreme Court had not shut the doors of this court for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is true that the words used in clause 7 are appeal or revision' but according to me the intention of the Supreme Court while passing the said order appears to be that the parties will not litigate further after the decision of the trial court is given and it was because of this the Supreme Court had observed that the decision of the trial court shall be binding on both the parties. In my opinion the petitioner by approaching this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wants to circumbent the order passed by the Supreme Court dated 19-9-1983 which was a consent order. In view of the said fact I am not inclined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) The petition is accordingly rejected.;