Civil Revision No.1664 of 2008 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1664 of 2008 Date of Decision: March 18, 2008 Nisheeth Bhatt & others ...Petitioners VERSUS Servants of the People Society & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 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? Present: Mr.Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The prayer of the petitioners filed under Section 10 read with Section 151 CPC for stay of proceedings in the suit is declined. The petitioners have challenged the same through the present revision petition. Servants of the People Society (respondent No.1) had Civil Revision No.1664 of 2008 : 2 : filed a suit for recovery against late Sumer Chand Bhatt for compensation by way of damages for occupation of residential quarter of Lajpat Rai Bhawan Complex in Sector 15-B, Chandigarh. This suit was adjourned sine-die on 30.4.1991 and has now been revived on 22.1.2006. Claiming that the issues in this suit, framed on 20.10.1986, are similar to the suit now filed by the Society in the year 1992, the prayer for staying the present suit is made by invoking the provisions of Section 10 CPC. The common issue in both the suits is stated to be `whether the defendant is a life member of the plaintiff Society entitled to residential accommodation'. The claim of respondent No.1-Society is on the ground that late Sumer Chand Bhatt, being no longer the life member of the Society, was not entitled to the use of residential quarter and by not vacating the same had made himself liable for payment of compensation for wrong use and occupation of the quarter. Sumer Chand Bhatt had died on 18.3.1999. Before his death, he had moved a similar application which was dismissed as the copies of the issues in the suits had not been filed. In a reply filed, it is urged that second application would not be maintainable as the earlier one was dismissed against which the appeal was filed which also had been dismissed. The trial Court, while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner, has noticed that evidence of respondent No.1-plaintiff was closed on 17.4.2002 and thereafter the petitioners had availed fifteen opportunities to lead evidence before moving an application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC. This application was disposed on 11.1.2005. The petitioners availed four effective opportunities for concluding the Civil Revision No.1664 of 2008 : 3 : evidence when they again moved an application for re-call of the earlier order. Twelve effective opportunities were further availed by the petitioners. Even last opportunity was granted to the petitioners to lead their evidence. It is also noticed that the petitioners even failed to deposit the diet money on more than one occasion and ultimately their evidence was closed when they filed the present application for staying the suit. The whole claim of late Sumer Chand Bhatt was based on the fact that he was a life member and Secretary of the Society and was entitled to the privilege of staying in the accommodation of Society. The stand of respondent No.1-Society is that Sumer Chand Bhatt had resigned from the life membership as well as from the post of Secretary, which was termed to be a forced one by him. In this context, Sumer Chand Bhatt filed a suit in the year 1982, challenging the resolution of a General Body whereby he was asked to surrender the accommodation. He has also sought relief for permanent injunction for restraining the Society and its employees from interfering in his possession. This suit was dismissed on 27.11.1986. The appeal was also dismissed. During the pendency of the Regular Second Appeal, late Sumer Chand Bhatt had filed an application for leading additional evidence which was allowed. This order was impugned by respondent No.1-Society before this Court. Sumer Chand Bhatt, however, expired during the pendency of this revision. The counsel representing Sumer Chand Bhatt suffered a statement that the suit had become infructuous on the death of Sumer Chand Bhatt. The revision petition was accordingly rendered infructuous and Civil Revision No.1664 of 2008 : 4 : was, thus, dismissed. The L.Rs. of Sumer Chand Bhatt (present petitioners) then filed a review petition against the order dated 7.11.2001, dismissing the revision petition as infructuous. The plea was that respondent No.1-Society had filed a similar suit against late Sumer Chand Bhatt and the dismissal of the revision and the suit as infructuous would prejudice the rights of the L.Rs to continue with the suit. The review petition was dismissed by this Court. It was observed that the right claimed in the suit, which was dismissed as infructuous, was personal to Sumer Chad Bhatt and would not survive after his death. It was, however, clarified that the dismissal of this suit would not be held against the petitioners and they would be entitled to raise all defences that were available to deceased Sumer Chand Bhatt. Obviously, the right of late Sumer Chand Bhatt to reside in the official accommodation came to an end. This right was personal to him and bestowed he being Secretary of the Society. With his death, his L.R. would be able to enjoy the privilege. During the course of arguments, it was conceded before me that his wife still continues to reside in the said accommodation. The application moved by the petitioners for staying the suit for recovery of damages has been rightly dismissed, in view of the earlier order dismissing such a prayer filed by Sumer Chand Bhatt. Even now the certified copies of the pleadings and the judgments rendered in the case were not produced on record for the court to decide the issue whether the suits were identical in nature. There is much justification in the observation made by the court that the petitioners have failed to Civil Revision No.1664 of 2008 : 5 : explain as to why they waited for twelve years to move this application. The court is justified in observing that the sole motive behind the present application appears to delay the proceedings on one pretext or the other. The finding in the previous litigation may act as a res judicata and once the petitioners failed to establish before the court if the issues in the previous suits are identical to the same, which are arising in the present case, the prayer under Section 10 CPC to stay the proceedings could not have been granted. I do not see any infirmity in the impugned order which may call for any interference. The revision petition, as such, is dismissed. March 18, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE