ORDER
M.M. Kumar, J.
1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India prays for quashing orders dated 16.3.2002 and 9.10.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Narnaul and the Addl. District Judge, Narnaul dismissing the application of the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. 1908.
2. The petitioner-tenant had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the landlord-respondent-defendant No. 1 Nitya Nand to not to interfere in the possession over the shop in dispute as fully described in the heading of the suit. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that brothers of the tenant-petitioner namely Lal Chand and Har Chand, defendant-respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have contested the litigation against the landlord-defendant-respondent No. 1 and they have lost the same upto the Supreme Court. It has further been found that the afore-mentioned defendant-respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had executed a rent note on 28.6.1989 and in pursuance thereto extensive repair of the demised shop was undertaken. When the execution proceedings were instituted by the landlord-defendant-respondent No. 1 an objection was raised on behalf of the tenant-petitioner that they were not parties to the earlier ejectment proceedings where defendant respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were sought to be ejected from the demised shop. On that basis it was urged that no execution can be ordered against the tenant-petitioner. However, both of them filed a civil suit for permanent injunction along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code.
3. Shri Amit Jain, Learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has argued that the tenant-petitioner had inherited the tenancy rights of his father Jutha Ram and they were never a party to the proceedings which culminated in the Supreme Court upholding the claim of the landlord-defendant-respondent No. 1 directing the ejectment of the other legal heirs namely defendant-respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Learned counsel has also urged that the tenant-petitioner were also not party to the rent noted dated 28.6.1989 in pursuance to which extensive repair of the shop was undertaken and it was virtually re-laid. Therefore, in the absence of their being a party their right of tenancy cannot be jeopardised.
4. After hearing the learned counsel and perusing the orders of the Courts below, I do not find any legal infirmity in the view taken by the courts below. It is well settled that a judgment which may not be inter-parties but belongs to the same property would always be relevant especially when it has been claimed by the tenant-petitioner that they have been doing business in the same shop which defies any ignorance. It has been so held by the Supreme Court in para 9 of the judgment in the case of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams v. K.M. Krishnaiah, A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 1132. Following the earlier judgments, their Lordships held as under:-
“In our view, this contention is clearly contrary to the rulings of this Court as well as those of the Privy Council. In Srinivas Krishna Rao Kango v. Narayan Devji Kango, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 379, speaking on behalf of a Bench of three learned judges of this court, Venkatarama Ayyar, J. held that a judgment not inter parties is admissible in evidence under Section 13 of the Evidence Act as evidence of an assertion of a right to property in dispute. A contention that judgments other than those falling under Sections 40 to 44 of the Evidence Act were not admissible in evidence was expressly rejected. Again B.K. Mukherjea, J. (as he then was) speaking on behalf of the Bench of four learned Judges in Sital Das v. Sant Ram, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 606 held that a previous judgment not inter parties, was admissible in evidence under Section 13 of the Evidence Act as a ‘transaction’ in which a right to property was ‘asserted’ and ‘recognised’. In fact, much earlier Lord Lindley held in the Privy Council in Dinamoni v. Brajmohini Oruft, 1992 I.L.R. 29 Cal. 190(198) (P.C.) that a previous judgment, not inter parties was admissible in evidence under Section 13 to show who the parties were, what the lands in dispute were and who was declared entitled to retain them. The criticism, of the judgment in Dinamoni v. Brajmohini and Ram Ranjan Chakerbarti v. Ram Narain Singh, 1895 I.L.R. 22 Cal. 533 (P.C.) by Sir John Woodroffe in his commentary on the Evidence Act (1931, p.181) was not accepted by Lord Blanesburgh in Collector of Gorakhpur v. Ram Sunder, A.I.R. 1934 P.C. 157:61 I.A. 286.”
5. Even otherwise, I do not find that any manifest injustice has been caused to the tenant-petitioner warranting interference of this court by exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. It is also well settled that this Court has to interfere only in cases where any manifest injustice has been caused.
6. In view of the above, the instant petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, it is made clear that no observation made in this order shall be constructed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall not be influenced by the same.