Gulshan Rai Vs. Pushpa Devi and Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos.2618-2625 of 2000
(@ SLP (C) Nos.24568/96, 3810, 3957,4106, 4375, 4459, 4489, 5440/97)
Petitioner: Gulshan Rai
Respondent: Pushpa Devi and Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos.2618-2625 of 2000
(@ SLP (C) Nos.24568/96, 3810, 3957,4106, 4375, 4459, 4489, 5440/97)
Judges: V.N. KHARE & N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 13, 2000
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION
Articles 226,136 – Suit for directions to execute lease deed, decreed – Second appeals pending – Meanwhile lease deed in favour of plaintiffs, cancelled by State – After losing in Writ, LPA pending – High Court dismissing RSAs accordingly – Parties agree-ing for sending back the matters to High Court. Held that in view of the statements, orders dismissing RSAs is set aside and matter sent back for decision after the decision in LPAs.
(Paras 5, 6)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Substitution applications allowed.
3. Exemption applications allowed.
4. Leave granted.
5. Since the facts and law involved in all these appeals are common, we, therefore, propose to decide these appeals by a common judgment. The Appellant herein filed a suit praying therein for directions to the defendants/Respondents to execute lease deed in their favour. The suit was decreed by the trial court, directing the defendants to execute lease deed, as per orders passed by the State of Haryana subject to the conditions of leaving specified space in front of shop of one Devi Dayal. The appellate court upheld the said decree with slight modifica-tion. The defendant/Respondents thereafter preferred ten Regular Second Appeals before the High Court. Cross objections were also filed. When the Regular Second Appeals came up for hearing it was found that the lease deed executed in favour of the Appellants was cancelled by the State Government. Consequently, the High Court was of the view that the appeals are rendered infructuous. It is against the said judgment the Plaintiff-Appellants are in appeal before this Court. It is stated at the bar that against the cancellation of lease deed the Plaintiff-Appellants had filed Writ Petitions before the High Court which were allowed and the Letters Patent Appeals filed by the Defend-ant-Respondents are pending before the Letters Patent Bench.
6. Learned Counsel for the parties jointly stated that in view of the fact that Letters Patent Appeals are pending, these matters may be sent back to the High Court to be decided after the decision which may be rendered in the Letters Patent Appeals. In view of the agreed statement of the parties, we set aside the judgments under appeal and send these matters back to the High Court to be decided after the decision in LPA No.187/91 arising out of the High Court W.P. No. 8299/88 decided on 19th November, 1990. The appeals are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Substitution applications allowed.
3. Exemption applications allowed.
4. Leave granted.
5. Since the facts and law involved in all these appeals are common, we, therefore, propose to decide these appeals by a common judgment. The Appellant herein filed a suit praying therein for directions to the defendants/Respondents to execute lease deed in their favour. The suit was decreed by the trial court, directing the defendants to execute lease deed, as per orders passed by the State of Haryana subject to the conditions of leaving specified space in front of shop of one Devi Dayal. The appellate court upheld the said decree with slight modifica-tion. The defendant/Respondents thereafter preferred ten Regular Second Appeals before the High Court. Cross objections were also filed. When the Regular Second Appeals came up for hearing it was found that the lease deed executed in favour of the Appellants was cancelled by the State Government. Consequently, the High Court was of the view that the appeals are rendered infructuous. It is against the said judgment the Plaintiff-Appellants are in appeal before this Court. It is stated at the bar that against the cancellation of lease deed the Plaintiff-Appellants had filed Writ Petitions before the High Court which were allowed and the Letters Patent Appeals filed by the Defend-ant-Respondents are pending before the Letters Patent Bench.
6. Learned Counsel for the parties jointly stated that in view of the fact that Letters Patent Appeals are pending, these matters may be sent back to the High Court to be decided after the decision which may be rendered in the Letters Patent Appeals. In view of the agreed statement of the parties, we set aside the judgments under appeal and send these matters back to the High Court to be decided after the decision in LPA No.187/91 arising out of the High Court W.P. No. 8299/88 decided on 19th November, 1990. The appeals are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
