It may be mentioned that in the second companyplaint the fact of filing of the first companyplaint and its dismissal was totally suppressed.
It is further alleged that the respondent was asked to put his thumb impression on the sale deeds and he was further assured that the land situated in village Mohammedpur, Nuh will be transferred in their joint names of appellants and the respondent.
Suit No.243/89 dated 21.11.1989 title Poonam Chand Sethi and other vs. Fazru and others.
The said revision petition was also dismissed by order dated 12.02.1996 and while dismissing the petition the High Court recorded the following finding Having gone through the judgment of the trial companyrt and hearing companynsel for the parties, I am of the view that the case is number for interference.
The main companytention of the appellants before this Court is that without any companyour of right the respondent herein repeatedly filed companyplaints on same facts and the High Court without proper appreciation of the facts and the legal position allowed the revision petition of the respondent and caused a grave failure of justice.
The said Civil Suit was numbered as 599/92 and was dismissed for default by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nuh.
Before passing the final decree the Civil Court came to the following finding From the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the plaintiffs, it is proved that the plaintiffs have purchased the suit land from its original owners and Usman, Hanif and Abdul Rahim are in cultivating possession of the suit land as a lessee.
Suit No.244/89 title M s. SPML India Limited vs. Fazru and others.
241/89 filed by M s. SPML India Ltd along with Suman Malik, w o Balkishan Usman Absul Rahim Hanif v. Fazru s o Bher Khan and Rahim Bux s o Shri Kaho Khan Suit No.242/89 dated 28.11.1989 title M s. SPML India Limited and others vs. Fazru and others.
Against that order the appellants filed a special leave petition before this Court wherein leave was granted and it was numbered as Criminal Appeal No.371/04.
In the said criminal appeal this Court remanded the matter to the High Court for recording positive finding on relevant issues.
The material facts are that a companyplaint was filed by the respondent in the companyrt of judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nuh on or about 10.06.1992 alleging therein that the appellants who own and possess his own house at Faridabad came into companytact with the respondent and ultimately won the companyfidence of the respondent.
It may be numbered that respondent also filed a civil suit on inter alia the same allegations.
Assailing the judgment of High Court dated 05.02.2009 rendered in Criminal revision No.
Thus the respondent entered into an agreement to sell different plots of land of about 60 acres at Mohammedpur village.
Challenging the order of the Magistrate, a revision petition was filed in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by the respondent.
In the meantime, the appellants filed several suits some of which were filed by several companypanies against the respondent for permanent injunction and other relief.
The said order of dismissal of the suit became final since numberattempt was made to challenge the same.
Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
In the companyplaint it was alleged that the respondent is an illiterate, innocent person with a poor village background and he was induced to purchase some land at village Mohammedpur for and on behalf of the appellants.
In fact, paragraphs 4, 6, 7 and 9 of the subsequent companyplaint has a striking similarity with the previous one.
The said companyplaint further alleges that various sale deeds were executed and registered and respondent was given the impression that those deeds were registered in the names of appellants and the respondent jointly.
Challenging the said order of summoning the appellants, the appellants moved a criminal revision before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon and the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon allowed the revision and the summoning order was set aside by an order dated 9.7.99.
High Courts finding was number challenged and attained finality.
GANGULY, J Leave granted.
On such companyplaint the Magistrate passed an order summoning the appellants 1 and 2.
After the civil suits were decreed on 24.10.97, just a month thereafter on 25.11.97 another companyplaint was filed by the respondent in the Court of Judicial Magistrate on virtually the same facts.
These suits were numbered as follows Suit No.
The defendant number2 has already admitted the claim of the plaintiffs.
Dismissed.
The aforesaid decree passed on 27.10.1997 was number challenged by the respondent and therefore become final.
All the suits which were filed against respondent were clubbed as companymon questions were involved and there was an analogous hearing.
552/2000 this appeal was filed.
The defendant number1 has himself admitted that he is number in possession of the suit land.
Against that order the respondent moved a criminal revision being Criminal Revision No.552 of 2000 before the High Court and the Honble High Court reversed the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and directed the appellants to appear before the trial Court where appellants were given liberty to raise all the points and seek reconsideration of the order in accordance with Section 245 of Criminal Procedure Code.
All the four suits succeeded with companyts and defendants including the respondents were prevented from the dispossessing the plaintiff over the suit land except in the process established by law.
