Holding

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in ordering eviction in the PIL without hearing the appellant and that, pending a civil suit, the appropriate course is to expedite the suit rather than intervene.

Summary

Santosh Sood, having obtained a loan from State Bank of Indore, constructed a building on a disputed parcel of land and entered into a lease agreement with the bank. The Nagar Palika, claiming ownership, filed a civil suit against Sood which remained pending. Respondent Gajendra Singh (the bank) and the Nagar Palika filed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking eviction of Sood, and the Madhya Pradesh High Court ordered the Nagar Palika to take steps for dispossession based solely on oral statements without hearing Sood. Sood appealed, contending that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to pass such an eviction order while a civil suit was pending and that the PIL was not maintainable. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in disposing of the PIL on the basis of statements without adjudicating the merits and that the proper remedy was to expedite the pending civil suit rather than intervene. Accordingly, the Court set aside the High Court order, directed the civil judge to hear the suit expeditiously, and allowed the bank to deposit rent pending the suit's outcome.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to order eviction in a public interest litigation without hearing the party claiming ownership when a civil suit is pending.
Whether a public interest litigation is maintainable in a private title dispute that is already before a civil court.
Whether an order can be passed on the basis of statements made at the bar without considering the merits of the case.
Whether the Nagar Palika may take steps for eviction without a specific order from a competent court.

Legislation cited

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

Subjects

public interest litigationjurisdictionevictioncivil suit pendingdue processtitle disputemunicipal corporationcourt orderinjunctioncontempt of courts

Judgment

[2009] 9 S.C.R. 470
_;..- )

A SANTOSH SOOD
v.
GAJENDRA SINGH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3601-3602 of 2009) ...._
.>----

MAY 15, 2009
B
[S.B. SINHA ANO OR. MUKUNOAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] r-
J
Jurisdiction - Of High Court - To order eviction from a
disputed property, title suit whereof pending - In a Public -.<-
c Interest Litigation - Without giving opportunity of hearing to
one of the parties claiming to be its owner - On the basis of .
statements made at the 8ar...,. Held: Such order by High Court
)
not called for, in view of the pending suit - The other party to
the suit (Nagar Palika), even otherwise, after decision in the
D suit in its favour, would have been entitled to take steps for i- rL
eviction - Direction issued to dispose of the pending suit "'\.
expeditiously - Public Interest Litigation.

Appellant and respondent-Nagar Palika were on
litigating terms. After two rounds of litigation, appellant
E
had filed a suit in respect of the property in question
I
against Nagar Palika. The suit is still pending. t

Appellant entered into an agreement of loan with the -t· .
re$pondent-Bank, for construction on the disputed land,
F according to which on completion of the construction,
the building was to be given to the Bank on rent.

Respondent No. 1 filed a Public Interest Litigation
be{ore High Court seeking eviction of the premises in
question. Respondent-Nagar Palika made a statement at
G ~
I

Bar before the High Court that the title suit by the
appellant had been dismissed; that Nagar Palika and ·~

cancelled the mutation entry made in favour of the
appellant; and that steps were being taken to take actual
H 470 ......
L
SANTOSH SOOD v. GAJENDRA SINGH & ORS. 471
- ....
possession. Respondent-Bank also made a statement A
that it was ready to pay the rent to Nagar Palika. High
Court on the basis of the statements, and without hearing
the appellant, directed Nagar Palika to take steps to
dispossess the appellant. Appellant's application for
recalling the order was dismissed. Hence the present B
~
appeals.
-~
Disposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. The High Court, disposed of the public
interest litigation on the basis of the statements made at c
the Bar without entering into the merit of the matter and,
thus, without resolving the controversy between the
party. There cannot, however, be any doubt whatsoever
that subject to an order passed by a competent court of
,.. law, the Nagar Palika would be entitled to take steps D
!'-- either to .execute the decree passed in its favour and/or
in terms of the provisions of the Act For the said purpose,
no order of a court of law was necessary. [Para 13] [478-
A-C]
E
2. If a Civil Suit was pending which may or may not
be frivolous, ordinarily the High Court should not have
entertained a public interest litigation. On the other hand,
t if it was found that the civil court was not proceeding with
the matter as expeditiously as it should have, appropriate
directions could have been issued in that behalf. It is trite F
that save and except cogent reasons, the High Court, in
a public interest litigation, would not interfere with the due
process of law. If an abuse of process of court was
undertaken by a party, some finding of fact was required
~ to be arrived at and even a proceeding under the G
Contempt of Courts Act could have been initiated. [Para
131 [478-D-Fl
The Advocate General, State of Bihar v. Madhya
Pradesh Khair Industries and Anr.; AIR 1980 SC 946 and H
1
472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 9 S.C.R.
x
}=
A Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee and Anr. v.
C.K. Rajan and Ors. 2003 (7) SCC 546, referred to.

3. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,
..
)

interest of justice would be subserved, if the following
directions are issued viz. 1) The Civil Judge, must take t:
B
up the hearing of the pending suit immediately and
J-
dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible without -)..
granting any adjournment in the suit save and except for
sufficient and cogent reasons; 2) If no order of injunction
has been passed against the Nagar Palika, it would be
c open to it to take such steps as is permissible in law.
Parties shall, however, be at liberty to pray for interim
order or direction if found to be necessary; 3) The Bank
shall' deposit the amount of rent in the said suit which
would be disbursed by the Court to the suc~essful party i.-
._
D subject to the result thereof and subject to any other and I
-l:
further order which may be passed by the Civil Judge.
[Para 14) [478-H; 479-A-D]
Case Law Reference:
E AIR 1980 SC 946 Referred to. Para 13
2003 (7) sec 546 Referred to. Para 13
CIVIL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. -t
3601-3602 of 2009.
F
From the Judgment & Order dated 14.03.2007 of the High
Court of Judicature for Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at
Gwalior in Writ Petition No. 5426 of 2006 & Orde.- dated
28.09.2007 in M.C.C. No. 254 of 2007.
G t
S.K. Jain, Puneet Jain and Archana Tiwari (for Pratibha
Jain) for the Appellants.

Pragati Neekhra, Ashok Mathur, Niraj Sharma and Vikas
Upadhyay (for B.S. Banthia) for the Respondents.
H
'
}
1
SANTOSH SOOD v. GAJENDRA SINGH & ORS. 473
-i;.:..

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A

S.S. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. The extent of jurisdiction of the High Court to pass an
order of demolition of property, ownership whereof is claimed
by the appellant without giving him an opportunity of hearing is 8
~"" the question involved herein.

3. The said question arises in the following factual matrix:

This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment
c
and order dated 14.3.2007 passed by the High Court of
Judicature for Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench, Gwalior in
Writ Petition No.5429 of 2006 directing the respondents for
-, taking steps for dispossessing the petitioner from the disputed
..,;,
land; as also the order dated 28.09.2007 of the said Court
D
+- dismissing the review petition being No. MCC 254 of 2007 filed
for review of the said order dated 14.3.2007.

The petitioner had obtained a loan of Rs.9 lakhs from
Respondent No.8, namely, the State Bank of Indore, Sheopur
for construction of a building which was to be let out to the bank E
upon completion of construction. The Respondent-bank had
duly verified the title of the appellant by obtaining a search report
+ through its panel lawyer Mr. Mahendra Kumar Jain. It
furthermore obtained legal opinion from the aforesaid panel
lawyer who certified in regard to his title vide letters dated F
24.11.2005 and 7.04.2006. Once the property was ready upon
construction, it was let out on rent by the petitioner and was duly
furnished for use of the bank. Since it involved a substantial
expenditure and also public money, it had serious
apprehensions of being dispossessed when the writ petition
~ G
(PIL) was entertained by the High Court. In the said writ
proceedings, it was submitted by the respondent-bank that it
was ready to pay the rent either to respondent Nos.6 and 7 or
4
to the present petitioner not to both the parties. It was
apprehended by the bank that if an orde~ is passed by the High H
474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 $.C.R.

A Court with regard to dispossession of the answering
respondent, it would involve a huge loss pertaining to the
furnishing and shifting of the premises besides loss of business
due to shifting. In those circumstances, permission was sought
by the bank to deposit the rent with the present appellant till
B liquidation of loan amount due to the bank and it was also
submitted that the bank was ready and willing to deposit the
amount of rent as per the direction of the court by making an
application for recall of the order dated 14.03.2007 in Writ
Petition No.5429 of 2006 (PIL). The High Court, however,
c dismissed the aforesaid application of the respondent bank.

It was furthermore submitted by the petitioner that the High
Court had dismissed the writ petition and the subsequent
review petition merely on the basis of oral submissions made
by the petitioner. The petitioner had not been served with a
D notice of the original writ petition as a result whereof, no reply
could be filed. It was also submitted that the High Court relied
upon a statement of the respondents wherein it was stated that
earlier a title suit had been filed by the petitioner which has
already been decided in favour of the Nagar Palika and the
E same was affirmed by the High Court in FA No.77 of 1998
against the petitioner. The High Court failed to consider that
the said Civil Suit-No.1-A of 1986 on which the court had relied
upon was filed by the petitioner in respect of a different property f;
and not the land in dispute in the present case.
F
A Civil Suit being No.178-A of 2006 is pending before the
Civil Judge Class II, Sheopur with regard to the property
involved in the present case in which the Nagar Palika, one of
the parties in the instant appeal had filed a reply and written
G statement on 12.10.2006. In the said suit, the petitioner~ herein
had obtained an injunction in their favou·r and the same is in
. oper~tion till th~ pendency of the suit.

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by the first
respondent before the High Court praying, inter alia, for the
H following reliefs :
SANTOSH SOOD v. GAJENDRA SINGH & ORS. 475
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
""""-
"(i) That the concerned authorities may kindly be A
directed to take immediate possession of the
property in question from respondent No. 7 and
cancel the order of transfer in the records of
Municipal Council, Sheopur.
B
.._, (ii) That the authorities may kindly be directed to take
. strict disciplinary and criminal action against the
officers who have indulged in the illegal act causing
loss to the Government as well as Municipal
Council, Sheopur.
c·
(iii) That the loss which has been caused may kindly be
ordered to be recovered from the officers and other
persons who are liable for the same."

..... The First Respondent contended that despite unsuccessful D
~ attempts on the part of the appellant to establish ownership over
the land which, in fact, is vested in the respondent No.6, Nagar
Palika; the appellant in collusion with its officers, managed to
see that it does not take steps for her eviction. In the said public
interest litigation, the appellant was arrayed as respondent
E
No.7.

4. Indisputably, appellant had entered into an agreement
~ of loan with the respondent No.6-Bank pursuant whereto or in
furtherance whereof, constructions were raised as per the
Bank's requirements. The monthly installments payable in terms F
of the said loan agreement to the bank were adjusted from the
rent stipulated for occupation of the said building.

5. Before the High Court, the Nagar Palika appeared. The
counsel for the Bank entered appearance. A statement was G
~ made by them that the title suit filed by the appellant against
the Municipal Council has been dismissed and an appeal
preferred thereagainst has also been dismissed. It was
furthermore contended that the Nagar Palika had cancelled the
mutation entry made in her favour and steps were being taken
H
476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R.
.r
A to obtain actual possession of the property. A statement was
also made by the counsel of the Bank that it would be ready to
pay rent to the Nagar Palika. The High Court, relying on or on
the basis of the said statements, directed :

"In view of this statement, this petition is disposed of with
B
the liberty to respondents No.5 and 6 to take steps in
1~
accordance with law for dispossessing the respondent
No.7 and 8. They can also accept the rent as tendered by +
respondent No.8.

c With the aforesaid observation, petition stands disposed
of."

6. Appellant filed an application for recalling of the said
order, inter alia, on the premise that before the passing of the
D same, she was not heard. ~

-{
By reason of a judgment and order dated 28.9.2007, the
said review application was dismissed, stating :

"After perusing the order passed by this Court in the writ
E petition, we find that this Court has disposed of the said
writ petition merely on the statements of the parties and
has not decided any controversy. Hence, there is no
mistake apparent on the face of the record to call for
-t-
review."
F
7. Mr. Sushi! Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant would contend :

(1) A Public Interest Litigation involving a complicated
question of title by and between the appellant and
G the Nagar Palika was not maintainable. ~

(2) In any event, no order and/or observation could
have passed/made without giving an opportunity of
hearing to the appellant.
H
SANTOSH SOOD v. GAJENDRA SINGH & ORS. 477
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
""t-
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the bank would A
support the case of the appellant.

9. Mr. Ashok Mathur, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of respondent No.6 and 7, would contend that by reason of the
impugned judgment, they having merely been permitted to take B
steps for eviction of the appellant to which it was otherwise
. -~
entitled to no interference with the impugned judgment is
~ warranted. Our attention has furthermore been drawn to the fact
that the appellant, despite having lost in two suits, has filed
another suit in the court of Civil Judge, Sheopur being suit
No.178-A of 2006 as a result whereof the Municipal Council is
c
hesitant to take steps for demolition of the building and/or
evicting the appellant and/or the Bank.

10. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 urged that the
Public Interest Litigation had to be filed as the officers of the D
""'
).. Municipal Council, despite passing of the decree by the Civil
Court, in collusion and in conspiracy with the appellant, had not
been taking steps for her eviction from a public property.

11. Admittedly, the appellant was not given any notice in E
the PIL. According to her, the dispute between the appellant
and the Nagar Palika is only in respect of the boundary wall
~ and not for the entire building. Had an opportunity of hearing
..__ been given to the appellant, it could have shown that the public
interest litigation was uncalled for, particularly having regard to
F
the admission made by the Nagar Palika in its written statement
filed in the earlier suits.

12. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the parties are
on litigating terms. Two rounds of litigation have come to an
end. Admittedly, another suit has been filed by the appellant in G
~ the court of Civil Judge, Sheopur. Whether such a suit is
maintainable or not or whether in effect and substance it is an
abuse of the process of the court will have to be determined
by the Civil Court itself.
H
478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R.
Y"
A 13. The High Court, unfortunately, even on its own showing
disposed of the public interest litigation on ths basis of the
statements made at the Bar without entering into the merit of
the matter and, thus, without resolving the controversy between
the party. There cannot, however, be any doubt whatsoever that
B subject to an order passed by a competent court of law, the
Nagar Palika would be entitled to take steps either to execute
1-
the decree passed in its favour and/or in terms of the provisions
of the Act. For the said purpose, no order of a court of law was
+
necessary. Before us, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed
c wherein it has been projected that the land in question belongs
to the Nagar Palika. The State of Madhya Pradesh also in its
counter affidavit raised similar contentions.

If a Civil Suit was pending which may or may not be
frivolous, ordinarily the High Court should not have entertained .....
D a public interest litigation. On the other hand, if it was found that
-4.
the civil court was not proceeding with the matter as
expeditiously as it should have, appropriate directions could
have issued in that behalf. It is trite that save and except cogent
reasons, the High Court, in a public interest litigation, would not
E interfere with the due process of law. If an abuse of process of
court was undertaken by a party, some finding of fact was
required to be arrived at and even a proceeding under the
Contempt of Courts Act could have been initiated. [See The
~
Advocate General, State of Bihar v. Madhya Pradesh Khair
F Industries & Anr. [AIR 1980 SC 946].

The parameters of a public interest litigation is well known
in view of a series of decisions of this Court . {[see for example
Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee & Anr. v. C.K.
Rajan & Ors. [(2003 (7) SCC 546]}.
G ;..

We need not enter into the said question, particularly, in
view of the order proposed to be passed by us.

14. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we
H are, therefore, of the opinion that interest of justice would be
,,,. SANTOSH SOOD v. GAJENDRA SINGH & ORS. 479
. -'\_ [S.B. SINHA, J.]
subserved, if this appeals are disposed of with the following A
directions :

(1) The Civil Judge, Sheopur must take up the hearing
of Suit No.178-A of 2006 immediately and dispose
of the SC!me as expeditiously as possible and not

.+ '
later than three months from the date of
communication of this order. It shall not grant any
B

adjournment in the suit save and except for sufficient
and cogent reasons.

(2) If no order of injunction has been passed against c
the Nagar Palika, it would be open to it to take such
steps as is permissible in law. Parties shall,
I
however, be at liberty to pray for interim order or
direction if found to be necessary.
..... D
-i (3) The Bank shall deposit the amount of rent in the said
suit which woutd be disbursed by the Court to the
successful party subject t.o the result thereof and
subject to any other and further order which may be
passed by the learned Civil Judge.
,,;
E
15. The appeals are accordingly disposed of with the

..
'1 ~
~
J above directions. No costs.

K.K.T. Appeals disposed of.