IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1283 of 2008 RAILWAY BOOK STALL VENDORS SHRAMIK SAHYOG SAMITI LTD. Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh For the Railways : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha 2. 13.8.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court the application dated 20.05.2008 filed by the petitioner in the court below invoking power u/s 151 C.P.C. for restoration of some portion of the cycle shed was wholly misconceived and has been rightly dismissed by the impugned order. Counsel for the petitioner though had argued the matter at length but had to ultimately concede to this aspect that the application filed by the petitioner u/s 151 was wholly misconceived and was not permissible inasmuch as if there was an order of injunction in favour of the petitioner, he had the remedy of invoking the provisions under Order 39 Rule 2(a) C.P.C. in case the railway authorities had breached the order of injunction. Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that as a matter of fact the impugned order of injunction was never 2 breached but on account of certain development the petitioner had become entitled to restoration of possession of the land of cycle shed. This Court is not going into the niceties of such argument for the simple reason that the moment the application filed by the petitioner u/s 151 was not maintainable, any effort on the part of the counsel for the petitioner to justify the action taken by the petitioner must be held to be an abuse of the process of the Court. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Railways submitted that as a matter of fact by the application dated 20.05.2008 had been filed by the petitioner, with a calculated design is to linger the suit, so that the same is not disposed of in the time limit fixed by this Court in its order dated 17.01.2008 in C.R. No. 806 of 2003 directing the Court below to dispose of the suit within a period of one year. He has also submitted that the petitioner is an unsuccessful settle of the Cycle and Scooter stand who has tried to remain forcible possession even after expiry of period of 3 his contract by stretching his Title Suit filed in the year 1994 and that he is not allowing the hearing of the suit to be concluded. This court on appreciation of materials on record as also after looking into the orders of this Court and the Apex Court finds that the petitioner is purposely delaying the final disposal of the suit. The petitioner had filed a Title Suit no. 122 of 1994 for a declaration that he was the contractor of Scooter and Cycle stands at Patna Junction and it had a right to continue without being evicted and for restraining the Railway authorities from giving delivery of possession of the said Scooter and Cycle stand to anyone esc. During the pendency of the suit an ad interim order of injunction was granted by the Court below and thereafter this Court on 17.11.2008 in Civil Revision No. 806 of 2003 had directed the Court below to expedite the hearing of the suit expeditiously preferably within a period of one year and the Court below was also directed to calculate the amount payable by the petitioner in view of 4 his remaining in possession even when his contract had came to an end in 1990 itself. The petitioner however had again moved this Court when he was directed by the Court below to pay Rs. 29,05,926.82 paise but his said Civil Revision application C.R. 413 of 2008 was dismissed with a direction to pay the said amount by 03.06.2008 and the said order of this Court was affirmed by the Apex Court by an order dated 01.08.2008 but the petitioner did not make the payment and had filed an application for remaining in possession of Cycle stand even without paying the amount in the garb of a prayer under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Having regard to aforementioned facts and submission of the counsel for the Railways, this Court would hold this application as wholly malafide and would direct the court below to proceed with the hearing of the suit on day to day basis and ensure that not only the suit is disposed of within the time framed fixed by this Court in the order dated 17.1.2008 but the amount which was directed to be paid by the 5 petitioner in the order of this Court dated 24.3.2008 in C.R.No. 413/2008 which has since been affirmed by the Apex Court in the order dated 5.5.2008 in S.L.P. No. 10767/2008 is also realized within the time framed so fixed by the Apex Court, failing which the court below will be at liberty to take coercive steps against the petitioner for implementation of the order. In view of the fact that this civil revision application was filed with an aim to delay disposal of a suit of the year 1994 despite two earlier orders of this Court dated 17.01.2008 in Civil Revision No. 806 of 2003 and order dated 24.03.2008 in Civil Revision No. 413 of 2008, the same must be held to be wholly frivolous and infact malafide. This Court would therefore dismiss it with an exemplary cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the Railways within a period of one month from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. ( Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/ 6