Court No. - 18
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5612 of 2018
Petitioner :- Abhishek Mishra And Another Respondent :- Smt. Seema Mishra And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.S. Pandey,Rajshree Malviya
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
In view of the order, which is proposed to be passed today, notices need not go to the private respondent.
Petitioners are before this Court assailing the judgement and order dated 03.01.2018 passed by Additional District Judge, Court no.6, Jhansi in Misc. Appeal no.61/2015 (Abhishek vs. Smt. Seema Mishra and others) as well as the order dated 23.09.2015 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.) Jhansi in Civil Suit no.844/2011 (Abhishek Mishra vs. Smt. Seema Mishra and others) by which the temporary injunction application bearing paper no.6C under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 and 102(C)(2) CPC of petitioner has been rejected.
It appears that the petitioners have filed Civil Suit no.844/2011 (Abhishek Mishra vs. Smt. Seema Mishra and others) before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chitrakoot alongwith application bearing paper no.6C under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 and 102(C)(2) CPC. The said application was rejected vide order dated 23.09.2015. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioners have filed Misc. Appeal no.61/2015 (Abhishek vs. Smt. Seema Mishra and others) and the said appeal was also dismissed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Court no.6, Jhansi.
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and finds that both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact and unless these findings are shown perverse or contrary to record resulting in grave injustice to petitioner, in writ jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court exercising restricted and narrow jurisdiction would not be justified in interfering with the same. In supervisory jurisdiction of this Court over subordinate Courts, the scope of judicial review is very limited and narrow. It is not to correct the errors in the orders of the court below but to remove manifest and patent errors of law and jurisdiction without acting as an appellate authority. The Court finds no justification warranting interference with the orders impugned in this writ petition.
Once the Court has declined to interfere with the impugned orders, then learned counsel for the petitioners prays that a direction be issued to the court below to decide the aforesaid suit within stipulated time.
In view of the decision in the case of Km. Shobha Bose Vs. Judge Small Causes Court 2010 (1) ADJ 531 (DB), it is not proper to issue any positive direction for time bound disposal of any proceedings without ascertaining the position of the workload in the court concern and in the absence of any allegation that the court below is responsible for the delay.
Considering the above, this petition stands disposed of with the direction upon the Court concerned to expedite the proceeding of pending Civil Suit no.844/2011 (Abhishek Mishra vs. Smt. Seema Mishra and others) and conclude the same, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, except upon payment of cost.
Order Date :- 18.8.2018
A. Pandey