Pur Polyurethane Products Pvt. Ltd. vs Delhi State Induct. Development Corp. Ltd. and Another

This appeal is directed against the order dated 11th July, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. In the writ petition, a prayer was made for direction to the respondents to allot shed No. 22, Phase-II, Scheme-II, New Okhla Industrial Complex, New Delhi to the petitioner-appellant and also to execute such other/further documents, which may be necessary for perfecting the title of the appellant herein in respect of the said shed. The second prayer, which was made in the writ petition was that the private respondent-landlord should be restrained from evicting the appellant-petitioner from the said shed.

The appellant-petitioner earlier filed another writ petition registered as W.P.(C) No. 3916/1990. In this petition by Order dated 28th January, 1991, the Court permitted the appellant herein to amend the writ petition and make a specific prayer that DSIDC should be directed to allot the shed to the appellant herein. In the said writ petition, the Division Bench vide Order dated 3rd September, 1993 permitted the appellant herein to deposit a sum of Rs. 14,25,000/- with DSIDC, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. Relief ''c'' made in W.P.(C) No. 3916/1990 is relevant for the purpose of our discussion and appreciation and reads as follows:-

(c) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate order or directions directing the Respondent No. 2 not to evict the Petitioner from premises situated at Shed No. 22, Phase II, Scheme II, New Okhla Industrial Complex, New Delhi; and allot/transfer shed No. 22, Phase II, Scheme II, New Okhla Industrial Complex, New Delhi under hire purchase scheme to the Petitioner in their own name.

Division Bench of this Court considered the contentions raised in the said writ petition and the same was disposed of by ex-parte Order dated 3rd July, 2006. While disposing of the said writ petition, the Division Bench specifically referred to the relief sought for by the appellant herein, in terms of the amendment allowed vide Order dated 28th January, 1991. Thereafter, on appreciation of the records, it was held by the Division Bench that the challenge to the eviction order dated 20th November, 1990 passed by the Estate Officer does not survive as the said order had been set aside vide order dated 14th May. 1991 passed in an Appeal filed by the landlord/owner. It was also held that the eviction proceedings were already pending before the Additional District Judge, Delhi and, therefore, no cause of action survives for entertaining the writ petition.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench, an application was filed by the appellant herein. The Division Bench considered the said application but the same was dismissed holding, inter alia, that the eviction order dated 20th November, 1991 had become final as against the appellant and also respondent no. 4 landlord therein. At the time of hearing of the said application and in terms of the pleadings made in the application, contention was raised before the learned Single Judge that the appellant should still be allotted the said shed although the eviction order had been passed. But the said contention was not accepted. It was reiterated by the Division Bench that once eviction order had become final there was no question of allotment of the said shed. The main challenge in the writ petition therefore failed and inspite of the subsequent developments also, i.e. deposit of money by the appellant for fresh allotment, it was held by the Division Bench that such a relief cannot be granted.

Being aggrieved by the Division Bench Order dated 25th July, 2006, the appellant approached the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition, which was also dismissed.

In the meanwhile, the appellant filed a fresh writ petition in which the impugned order and judgment was passed. In the fresh writ petition, which was filed, two reliefs were sought for by the appellant. One was for direction to the respondent-DSIDC to allot the said shed to the appellant in respect of which eviction order was passed and W.P.(C) No. 3916/1990 was filed viz. shed No. 22, Phase-II, Scheme-II, New Okhla Industrial Complex, New Delhi. The second relief was for an order prohibiting the respondent-landlord from evicting the appellant from shed No. 22, Phase-II, Scheme-II, New Okhla Industrial Complex, New Delhi. There is no dispute so far as the first writ petition is concerned as the same stands dismissed. The shed which was the subject matter of the first writ petition was the same shed being shed No. 22, Phase-II, Scheme-II, New Okhla Industrial Complex, New Delhi, allotment of which again was made subject matter of the second writ petition.

In the application CM No. 8513/2006 filed in W.P.(C) No. 3916/1990, reference was made to the scheme for allotment on the basis of which the appellant had made a prayer for allotment of the shed in his favour, which was considered by the Division Bench but was rejected. The matter went to the Supreme Court and the said contention was also raised before the Supreme Court but the SLP was dismissed in limine.

Learned Single Judge while dealing with the submissions has extracted various observations in order dated 25th July, 2006 passed by the Division Bench in the earlier writ petition as well as referred to the contentions raised by the appellant herein in the Special Leave Petition. The submission made before the Division Bench and also the averments made in the SLP clearly indicate that prayer for allotment of the shed in the appellant''s name was made but did not find favour with the Courts. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the records, it was held by the learned Single Judge that the aforesaid second writ petition could not be entertained. Issues raised were already decided by the Division Bench of this Court and subsequently the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP in limine.

On consideration of the records and in terms of the submissions made, we find no reason to take a different view than what was taken by the learned Single Judge. We find the aforesaid facts, which have been delineated above clearly establish that not only the order of eviction of the appellant from shed No. 22, Phase-II, Scheme-II, New Okhla Industrial Complex, New Delhi has become final and binding, but the Division Bench had also considered the prayer of allotment of the shed in favour of the appellant and rejected the said prayer for which reasons were also recorded.

In this connection, we may also refer to the provisions of Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which provides that where a suit is wholly or partially dismissed in the absence of the plaintiff but when the defendant had appeared, the plaintiff would be precluded from filing another suit on the same cause of action. It is an established principle that the provisions of the CPC do not in terms apply to writ proceedings before the High Court, but the proceedings would nonetheless be governed by the principles analogous to those contained in CPC ( Ramsingh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, ). In our considered opinion, the aforesaid principle would also apply to proceedings in a writ petition. The prayer with regard to the allotment of the shed was made in W.P.(C) No. 3916/1990 but by an ex-parte judgment the writ petition was dismissed on 3rd July, 2006. Application filed thereafter for recall/review met with the same fate. SLP filed also stands dismissed. The relevant prayer clause of the said writ petition has been quoted above. The appellant herein had in the said petition also made a prayer for allotment of the shed. He cannot now file another Writ Petition for relief of allotment of the shed. The second Writ Petition is not maintainable in view of the principle analogous to Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion the learned Single Judge was justified in not entertaining the writ petition and in rejecting the same. We find no merit in the appeal and is accordingly dismissed.