CWP No.19502 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 19502 of 2008 Date of decision: 17.11.2008 Bhajan Singh and another ....Petitioners. vs. State of Punjab and others. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR. HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR. --- Present: Mr.D.S.Rajput, Advocate, for the petitioners. -- J.S.KHEHAR,J. (Oral) Respondent No.4 Baldev Singh filed a civil suit in the subordinate Court at Fazulka, seeking a declaration to the effect that he was owner of land measuring 30 kanals 19 marlas, that is half share of land measuring 61 kanals 17 marlas situated in village Jaure Jand alias Dhimne wala, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur, on the basis of a judgment/decree dated 17.12.1980. His aforesaid claim was also based on the fact that he was son of Smt.Dhan Kaur daughter of Kishan Kaur widow of Sunder Singh, as also on the basis of a will dated 27.11.1973. In addition to the aforesaid prayer, respondent No.4 Baldev Singh sought the relief of permanent injunction, so as to restrain Gurbachan Singh, Bhajan Singh, Santa Singh, Harnam Kaur and Baldev Singh ( of which Bhajan Singh and Santa Singh are the petitioners herein) the defendants from alienating the suit land in any manner to any person, as well as, for the possession of the suit land. The aforesaid suit filed by respondent No.4 Baldev Singh was dismissed by the trial Court at Fazilka on 12.9.1989. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in the suit (Gurbachan Singh, Bhajan Singh and Santa Singh) were held as bona fide CWP No.19502 of 2008 2 purchasers for valuable consideration without notice. The judgment on the basis whereof respondent No.4 Baldev Singh had based his claim were held to have been obtained by practicing fraud on the courts. Defendant No.1 (Gurbachan Singh) was held to be entitled to possession of the land mentioned in the sale deed i.e., the entire land earlier owned by Niranjan Singh and sold by defendant No.1. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the trial Court at Fazilka, dated 12.9.1989 respondent No.4 Bladev Singh preferred an appeal. The aforesaid appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate Court vide order dated 7.11.1990. The relief of restitution of possession of land measuring 60 kanals and 15 marlas, as had been allowed to the defendants by the trial Court was modified. The relief regarding alienation of land vide sale deeds in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 (Bhajan Singh and Santa Singh) was however, anulled. Respondent No.4 Baldev Singh then approached this Court by filing Regular Second Appeal No.392 of 1991. Different interim orders were passed in the aforesaid Regular Second Appeal.It is however, relevant to notice that the counsel for the respondent before this Court (in RSA No.392 of 1991) recorded an undertaking on 19.2.1991 that his client would not sell the property in question, except with the prior permission of this Court. It is however, significant to notice, that it was emphatically pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that service on respondent Nos.2 to 4 (Bhajan Singh, Santa Singh and Harnam Kaur) were dispensed with on account of the fact, that they were alleged to be proforma respondents. CWP No.19502 of 2008 3 In the background of the factual position, noticed hereinabove, the instant writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Tehsildar Fazilka District Ferozepur, as well as, Naib Tehsildar of the same area, to allow the the petitioners herein (Bhajan Singh and Santa Singh) to register a sale deed in respect of 30 Kanals 15 marlas of land situated in village Jaure Jand alias Chimne Wala, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur, in favour of Rajinderpal Singh and Navtej Singh (not impleaded as parties in the instant writ petition). At the very inception of hearing, we informed the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the issue canvassed by him was of a civil nature involving intricate facts inter-twine with civil litigation reference of which has been detailed in the foregoing paragraphs. Learned counsel for the petitioners was also advised that this Court was not an appropriate forum to adjudicate upon the controversy raised in the present writ petition. In spite of the same, learned counsel for the petitioners continued to address arguments, as also, invite our attention to the various orders passed by the Civil Court, as also, by this Court. On our express query, whether or not permission has been sought from this Court in furtherance of interim orders passed by this Court seeking liberty to sell the land in question, learned counsel for the petitioners informed us, that no such liberty had been sought but clarified to state that the interim orders passed by this Court in Regular Second Appeal No.392 of 1991, are not binding upon the petitioners herein. Having considered the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that the petitioners have unnecessarily misused the jurisdiction of this Court. The issues canvassed on behalf of the CWP No.19502 of 2008 4 petitioners constitute disputed questions of fact , and as such, ought to have been canvassed by the petitioners before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Litigation in respect of the property in question is pending adjudication before this Court. The statement of a co-respondent has been recorded by this Court, that he would not sell the property in question, except with the prior permission of this Court. The petitioners have not even impleaded as party respondents (in the present writ petition) the vendees to whom they desire to sell the property in question. In view of the above, we are satisfied that the petitioners have misused the jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioners have approached this Court on disputed questions of fact, wherein complicated and intricate issues of facts inter- twined with orders passed in civil litigation between the rival parties will essentially have to be adjudicated upon. In view of the aforesaid position, we consider it just and appropriate to relegate the petitioners to their remedy before a Civil Court. For unnecessarily wasting precious Court time for taking us through the pleadings and earlier litigation, we consider it just and appropriate to impose exemplary costs on the petitioners. The instant writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/-. The aforesaid costs shall be deposited by the petitioners with the Legal Services Authority, Punjab, within two months from today, and the receipt thereof shall be placed on the record of this case, failing which, the instant writ petition will be re-listed for motion hearing, so as to recover the aforesaid costs. It would be unfair to the learned counsel for the petitioners if we do not record the fact that, at the culmination of the hearing of the case, CWP No.19502 of 2008 5 learned counsel for the petitioners offered to withdraw the instant writ petition. The only question is whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the costs imposed upon the petitioners deserve to be withdrawn on account of the offer made by the petitioners after he had already wasted Court time. In our view, the prayer made at the hands of the learned counsel for the petitioners after having wasted precious Court time is inconsequential, and is accordingly rejected. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ( J.S.Khehar) Judge (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge November 17, 2008 rk