M/S. Manu Maharani Hotels Ltd. Petitioner v. Manu Maharani Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Another S

U.C Dhyani, J. (Oral):— By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks following relief, among others:

“Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 19.12.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nainital in Civil Suit No. 30 of 2000 The Manu Maharani Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Manu Maharani Hotels Ltd. as well as quashing the judgment/order dated 16.06.2014 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Nainital in Civil Revision No. 09 of 2013 Manu Maharani Hotel Ltd. v. Manu Maharani Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. confirming the order of the trial court.”

2. After arguing for a while, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his prayer only to the extent that it may be clarified by this Court that the trial court, while framing issue no. 4, meant the ‘travel desk’ only and nothing more while describing ‘disputed property’. Such issue was framed by the trial court on 20.07.2005, the English translation of which reads as follows:

Whether the disputed property is the property of trust?

Whether the plaintiff is beneficiary of the trust property?

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to remain in possession of such disputed property? If so, its effect.

3. The Manu Maharani Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. filed Original Suit No. 30/2000 against M/s. Manu Maharani Hotels Ltd. for a relief of permanent prohibitory injunction. Subsequently, Dan Singh Bisht Trust was impleaded in the said suit. The only fact which is relevant, at this stage, for the decision of present writ petition, is that the description of suit property, which has been given in para 5 of the plaint, relates to ‘travel desk’ only. The ‘travel desk’ has been shown as ‘ABCD’ in the site-plan enclosed with the plaint.

4. Thus, it is manifest that the plaintiff has filed an Original Suit no. 30/2000 in respect of ‘travel desk’ only, which is the subject matter of the property in suit. The law is clear on the point that the trial court may grant relief only in respect of suit property and not beyond that. The relief clause, at the end of the plaint, also relates to the ‘travel desk’, as has been shown by the plaintiff with the letters ABCD in the site-plan as annexed with the plaint. It, therefore, cannot be doubted that the trial court, while framing issue no. 4, had only travel desk in its mind and nothing beyond that.

5. It is thus clarified that the disputed property, while framing issue no. 4 by the trial court, means travel desk and nothing more.

6. The impugned orders are accordingly directed to be read in view of the above clarification made by this Court. This disposes of the writ petition, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.