Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Shesh Bahadur Singh(D) Thr.Lrs vs Ram Das Singh(D) Thr. Lrs on 24 July, 2025
Bench: Sudhanshu Dhulia, Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE/INHERENT JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9673 OF 2013
SHESH BAHADUR SINGH(D) THR.LRS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
RAM DAS SINGH(D) THR. LRS. & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 211 OF 2022
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9673 OF 2013
ORDER
The matter relates to a dispute of an agricultural
land which is situated in District Azamgarh, Uttar
Pradesh. The contesting claimants were one Basudev
Singh, Sesh Bahadur Singh, both are represented
through their legal heirs before this Court.
Both the parties claim their right on the agriculture
land in village Basti, Tappa – Nanaun, Paragana,
Nizamabad P.O., Babu ki Basati, District Azamgarh,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.08.01
17:23:10 IST
Uttar Pradesh. It is an undisputed fact that at the
Reason:
relevant point of time, notification was issued under
2
Section 4 of The Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 [in short, “Consolidation Act”] and
consolidation proceedings were going on. In those
proceedings, an order was passed in favour of the
present appellant(s) on 23.07.1966.
The respondents, who are before this Court, had
taken this order in an appeal and, thereafter, in
revision, they lost and ultimately filed a Writ Petition
before the High Court, where their writ petition was
dismissed vide order dated 28.07.1967.
After losing from all the courts, Basudev Singh then
filed a Civil Suit No. 260 of 1967 for cancellation of the
order dated 20.05.1967 passed by the Deputy Director
(Consolidation Authority). The grounds taken were that
the order was obtained by fraud. For the reasons best
known to the parties and which amazes us totally, is
that both the parties during trial consented that the
dispute will be resolved by arbitration. The matter was
referred to three Arbitrators, who gave the Award in
favour of the respondents and held that they were
entitled to be the owners of the land in dispute.
3
In the meanwhile, issues were framed in the trial as
to the very maintainability of the suit, which went in
favour of the defendant(s) that the suit was not
maintainable in view of the specific bar under Section
49 of the Consolidation Act. Section 49 reads as
under:-
“Bar to civil Courts jurisdiction.
– Notwithstanding anything contained
in any other law for the time being in
force, the declaration and adjudication
of right of tenure-holder in respect of
land lying in an area, for which a
[notification] has been issued [under
sub-section (2) of Section 4] or
adjudication of any other right arising
out of consolidation proceedings and
in regard to which a proceeding could
or ought to have been taken under
this Act, shall be done in accordance
with the provisions of this Act and no
Civil or Revenue Court shall entertain
any suit or proceeding with respect to
rights in such land or with respect to
any other matters for which a
proceeding could or ought to have
been taken under this Act :]
4[Provided that nothing in this section
shall preclude the Assistant Collector
from initiating proceedings under
Section 122-B of the Uttar Pradesh
Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950 in respect of any
land, possession over which has been
delivered or deemed to be delivered to
a Gaon Sabha under or in accordance
with the provisions of this Act.]”Even on Res Judicata, a finding has already been
given by a competent court of jurisdiction and
therefore, the matter stands settled between the parties
and cannot be agitated again. Against the order of the
trial court, the plaintiff(s) (respondents herein) filed a
First Appeal which was dismissed and consequently,
they filed the Second Appeal, in which the following
substantial question of law was framed :-
“……one of the substantial questions of
law which arises in this appeal is
whether the suit could have been
dismissed as not maintainable or
without jurisdiction after the dispute in
suit was referred by the court to
5arbitration without the reference being
superseded?”The High Court then referred to Sections 21 and 23
of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which was applicable to
the dispute at the relevant point of time. The said
Sections are reproduced thus :-
“21. Parties to suit may apply for order of
reference – Where in any suit all the
parties interested agree that any matter
in difference between them in the suit
shall be referred to arbitration, they may
at any time before judgment is
pronounced apply in writing to the Court
for an order of reference.
23. Order of reference – (I) The Court
shall, by order, refer to the arbitrator the
matter in difference which is required to
determine, and shall in the order specify
such time as it thinks reasonable for the
making of the award.
(2) Where a matter is referred to
arbitration, the Court shall not, save in
the manner and to the extent provided in
this Act, deal with such matter in the
suit.”
6
The High Court was of the view that the trial court
as well as the First Appellate Court had decided the
case pending decision in the Arbitration Proceedings
and irrespective of the decision therein, which is clearly
violative of Section 23(2) of the Arbitration Act and
therefore, the decisions of the trial court and the
appellate court cannot be sustained. Hence, these
matters are remanded to the trial court for a fresh
consideration on objections whether the suit itself was
maintainable or not.
At this juncture, we may also note that what the
respondents were doing was not merely making a
prayer in the suit for cancellation of the order passed in
the Consolidation proceedings but in disguise were also
seeking an order in a civil suit for setting aside the
order of the High Court, which gave its seal of approval
to the orders were passed during the Consolidation
proceedings.
We are of the view that a patent error has been
committed in this case inasmuch as there was no
occasion for referring the matter for arbitration in a suit
7
which itself was not maintainable, not only in view of
Section 49 of the Consolidation Act, which bars filing of
such a suit, but more importantly, because of the Res
Judicata as the findings of a competent court of
jurisdiction on the same dispute was already there, in
which both the parties, which are now the parties in
the suit, were also the same parties.
Under these circumstances, the order of the High
Court dated 26.08.2011 passed in Second Appeal
No.1593 of 1976 cannot be sustained and is hereby set
aside. We make it clear that both the parties shall
abide by the orders passed in the Consolidation
Proceedings and act accordingly. In view of above, the
appeal is allowed.
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are
disposed of.
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 211 OF 2022
In this contempt petition, notice has not been
issued so far. Considering that the main matter has
now been decided and also considering that most of the
alleged offences are also hit by Section 20 of the
8
Contempt of Courts Act, we see no occasion to continue
with this contempt petition. The contempt petition is
hereby closed.
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are
disposed of.
……………………………J.
[ SUDHANSHU DHULIA ]
…….……………………..J.
[ ARAVIND KUMAR ]
New Delhi;
JULY 24, 2025.
9
ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.8 SECTION III-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 9673/2013
SHESH BAHADUR SINGH(D) THR.LRS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
RAM DAS SINGH(D) THR. LRS. & ORS. Respondent(s)
IA No. 90790/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 90786/2024 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/
FACTS/ANNEXURES
WITH
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 211/2022 in C.A. No. 9673/2013 (III-A)
IA No. 91693/2022 – APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 89733/2022 – APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 28958/2022 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT
IA No. 89735/2022 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 28959/2022 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 24-07-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anilendra Pandey, AOR
Mr. Kamlesh Upadhyay, Adv.
Ms. Aarati Sah, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jay Kishor Singh, AOR
Mr. K. K. Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Dharmendra Kumar, Adv.
Mr. B. D. Sharma, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The Civil Appeal is allowed and contempt petition is closed in
terms of the signed order.
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed
of.
(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)