The Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that Public Interest Litigation (PIL) proceedings cannot be entertained in order to quash a judgment and decree that is passed by a Civil Court.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav dismissed a PIL filed by Ramji Kushwaha alleging that private respondents are trying to grab the Government land suppressing the judgment passed by the Lower Court.
It is the case of the Petitioner that the private respondents by suppressing the judgment and decree dated 02.01.2012 passed by the Third Civil Judge Class-I, Satna and the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2013 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Satna in execution proceedings in a number of cases including Execution Case , which arose out of an ex parte judgment and decree dated 18.04.1996.
The respondents are trying to take possession of the small piece of land. The said land is declared as the Government land. That it does not belong to private respondents. Therefore, in the garb of the aforesaid judgments and decrees, the private respondents are trying to grab the Government land and they are also ready to evict the persons from the land by using Government machinery. Hence, the petition is said to have been filed espousing the cause of the public. The prayer made herein is to quash the order dated 03.07.2019 passed by the First Civil Judge Class-II, Satna in Execution Case and similar cases.
Also Read: Prashant Kishor: Congress playing XI hopes come crumbling
The counsel for the petitioner contended that this petition is filed espousing public cause. The respondents in the guise of the judgments and decrees as narrated are seeking to take the land onto themselves. That the property is a Government land. That the decrees have been obtained in favour of the respective persons. That the same are being disobeyed. That the private respondents by taking law into their hands are attempting to evict the persons and to take the Government land.
On hearing the counsels, the Bench did not find any merit in the PIL.
The Court held that firstly is a question as to whether there is any public interest involved. The parties to the civil suits are parties agitating their respective civil rights in a Civil Court. If at all they are aggrieved by any civil action against them, they are entitled to defend themselves in the appropriate suit, the First Appellate Court or the Second Appellate Court. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the dispute is presently pending adjudication in a Second Appeal, which is pending before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. Therefore, if at all the parties therein are aggrieved or any order is required, they should move the appropriate Court for appropriate relief. The Court does not find any nexus with the petitioner and the parties to the said dispute.
Also Read: NEET PG: Supreme Court adjourns plea against EWS quota
It is only a claim of the writ petitioner that he is espousing public cause. The High Court found absolute absence of any public cause.
“This is a completely private cause of the litigants in the dispute. If at all they are interested, they are very well aware as to how they should protect themselves. Furthermore, we do not find even a single person who is involved in the impugned judgment and decree as party to these proceedings. Therefore, when they have not joined in the petitioner, we fail to understand as to how this petition could be considered as a public interest litigation.”
Secondly, the relief sought for herein is to set aside an order passed by a judicial Court. The Court does not think that a writ proceeding could be entertained in order to quash a judgment and decree that is passed by a Civil Court. The remedy lies elsewhere.
Also Read: Delhi govt vs Centre: Supreme Court reserves order on sending plea to Constitution Bench
Hence, the Bench finds that not only there is absence of any public interest but the Court does not find that the rights of any of the non-parties whose cause the petitioner is espousing, could be entertained by the High Court.