Baljit Singh Vs. Municipal Committee, Ahmedgarh - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- [ b.c. ray and; m.p. thakkar, jj.] -- civil procedure code, 1908 — order 41 rule 31 — appellate judgment of high court — obiter observation — where dispute related to title to specified area of land on which petitioner's shops were constructed, high court's observation that the area apart from the area in question belonged to the respondent was, in absence of any issue in that regard, obiter and therefore, would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner -- the dispute concerns title to 28-3/9 square yards on which the shops of the petitioner were constructed. the high court while upholding the claim of the petitioner to the title to this land has made an observation to the effect that the land apart from the aforesaid 28-3/9 square yards underneath the shops belongs to the respondent.b.c. ray and; m.p. thakkar, jj.1. the present special leave petition is directed against the judgment rendered by the high court of punjab and haryana in r.s.a. no. 775 of 1981. the dispute concerns title to 28-3/9 square yards on which the shops of the petitioner were constructed. the high court while upholding the claim of the petitioner to the title to this land has made an observation to the effect that the land apart from the aforesaid 28-3/9 square yards underneath the shops belongs to the respondent. says the high court:“that the remaining area of khasra no. 45 (new) vests in the municipal committee, ahmedgarh and the defendant has no claim thereto as an obiter, since there was no issue in regard to this point.”2. this observation is in the nature of an obiter. since there was no issue in regard to the title to the land other than 28-3/9 square yards, the apprehension entertained by the petitioner that it may cause prejudice to the petitioner is ill-founded. the question as regards the title to the land other than the land beneath the shops was not in issue in the proceedings culminating in the impugned judgment of the high court against which special leave is sought. and the question of title to the other lands remains unresolved by this judgment. it will have to be resolved by a competent court before which such an issue is raised. under the circumstances we see no reason to interfere in this matter. special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.