RSA No. 1819 of 2006(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1819 of 2006(O&M) Date of Decision: February 15 , 2010 Deep Singh and others ...... Appellants Versus Municipal Council, Sirsa through its Executive Officer ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Kulwant Singh, Advocate for Mr.Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the courts below dismissing suit of the appellants challenging resumption order/s dated 13.07.1995. Both the courts found that the appellants had purchased some plots in auction but despite repeated notices they did not make any payment beyond the initial payment of 25%. The plea of the appellants that they were justified in not making payment because the possession was not granted to them was rightly rejected by the courts below relying upon a catena of judgments of this Court in Bhupinder Kumar Gupta v. Haryana Urban Development authority & another reported as RSA No. 1819 of 2006(O&M) 2 1995(3) SLJ 1993, Smt. Sandhya Jindal v. The State of Haryana & others, reported as 1996 PLJ 694, Davender Singh Pannu & others v. Chandigarh Administration & others, reported as 1998 HRR 93 and Veer Siingh and others v. Udham Singh, reported as 1999 HRR 381, wherein it has been held that the fact that possession has not been given to the purchasers would not be a ground to stop the payment of the contracted amount. The second ground which weighed with the courts below was that the appellants had earlier filed a suit for injunction restraining the respondent from auctioning the property in dispute. The said suit was got dismissed as withdrawn and, even though no permission was granted by the learned court to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action yet an averment was made in the plaint that such permission had in fact been granted. The following questions have been proposed:- a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant case the order of resumption is not illegal, arbitrary, motivated and ultravires the provisions of the act and hit by the principle of natural justice? b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant case the civil suit filed by the appellant could be said to be barred by Order 23 rule 1 CPC? c) Whether the non-development and non-removal of encroachment made the respondent disentitled to impose interest and taking any penal action against the appellants? Questions No. (a) and ( c ) are overlapping questions. In view of the judgements cited above these proposed questions have to be held against the appellants. As regards question No.(b), the appellants are disentitled from prosecuting this case not only on the ground that earlier suit was got dismissed as withdrawn but also on the ground that they had RSA No. 1819 of 2006(O&M) 3 wrongly raised a plea in the plaint that permission had been granted to them for filing a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Consequently holding all the questions proposed against the appellants, this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE February 15, 2010 sunita