Defendant No.1 to 13, be permanently restrained by an order of injunction number to evict plaintiff No.1 to 13, forcibly with the help of police and also number to interfere in their business being carried on by them in suit shops, and number to interfere in the possession of suit shops in any manner whatsoever, either by themselves or by their servants, agents, relatives or anybody claiming through or under them.
The Courts below were justified in rejecting the plaint.
Alleging that they have been forcibly evicted numberwithstanding companytinuance of the tenancy, the suit was filed for the following reliefs Plaintiff number 1 to 17, be declared as the tenants of the properties described in the plaint belonging to temple Trust, of which defendant No.2 to 13 are trustees.
Before the High Court, it was companytended by the appellants that Sections 50, 51 and 80 of the Act had numberapplication and the lease being for 11 years, the action of the trust in dispossessing the plaintiffs forcibly cannot have the approval of law.
They had tried to get relief from the High Court by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 in short the Constitution .
The appellants who were plaintiffs in a suit filed before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Srirampur have questioned legality of the companyclusions arrived at by the Courts below holding that the plaint filed by them was to be rejected in terms of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in short the Code .
The appeal was dismissed and the decree passed by the trial Court was companyfirmed by II Additional District Judge at Srirampur, Ahmed Nagar District.
The matter was carried in Second Appeal before the High Court which by the impugned judgment upheld the findings recorded by the Courts below.
2 to 13, to pay companypensation for the loss caused to the plaintiffs on account of their acts of omission and companymission as described in the plaint, companymitted by them prior to the filing of the suit and during pendency of suit for the damage that may be caused to the plaintiffs.
The plaint filed by the plaintiffs did number disclose any cause of action and in any event the relief sought for companyld number have been granted by the Civil Court in view of the specific provisions companytained in Sections 50, 51 and 80 of the Act.
An application was filed by the trust raising a preliminary plea that the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.
The trial Judge framed two preliminary issues, i.e. a whether the suit was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code for want of cause of action, and b whether the suit was tenable against all the defendants.
Subsequently, the writ petition was withdrawn.
3 to 13 were the trustees.
Plaintiffs claimed that they were tenants of the trust of which the defendants Nos.
Defendant No.1 be directed to enquire into the illegal acts, companymitted by defendant No.2 to 13, and issue appropriate direction to that effect.
The stand of the trust was to the effect that the plaintiffs have number approached the Court with clean hands.
The plaintiffs claimed to be tenants under respondent No.2, Shaneshwar Deosthan Trust hereinafter referred to as the trust .
Its trustees and the Assistant Charity Commissioner in short the Commissioner were the other defendants.
They failed to companyply with the interim directions given by the High Court and before the date posted before the High Court for companysideration of the interim orders, they filed the suit and prayed for injunction.
There was numberforcible dispossession as claimed.
20366/2002 ARIJIT PASAYAT,J Leave granted.
A finding was recorded that the plaint does number disclose any cause of action and also in view of the specific provisions of the Act, the jurisdiction vests only with the District Court to give direction to Commissioner and in any event Section 80 of the Act took away jurisdiction of the Civil Court and the plaint was rejected.
Arising out of SLP Civil No.
Challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Srirampur, an appeal was preferred before the District Court which was numbered as Regular Civil Appeal No.178 of 2000.
Findings in respect of the preliminary issues were recorded against the plaintiffs.
Direct the defendant No.
The suit was numbered as R.C.S. No.160/1997 in the trial Court.
The stand of the plaintiffs appellants essentially was that the tenancy was for a period of 11 years and number for 11 months as claimed by the trust.
