In view of the order proposed, no need to issue notices to the private respondents.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
By means of present writ petition, petitioner is seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 24.06.2010 ( Annexure no. 1) passed by learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Sitapur in Civil Misc. Application No. 147 of 2010 Dr. Ram Singh vs. Bhanu Pratap Singh and others, by which the learned Civil Judge refused to entertain the suit for permanent injunction by observing that there is no urgency to hear the matter in summer vacation. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that this matter is extremely urgent and it requires urgent hearing considering the facts that if the matter is not heard, the contesting opposite parties may dispossess the petitioner and cut the trees standing over the plot in dispute causing loss to the petitioner. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that parental house of the petitioner is situated at village Manjha, Pargana-Barri, Tehsil Sidhauli, District- Sitapur. In front of the petitioner's house an open land belonging to the petitioner is situated in which one tree of Labhera, one tree of Neem, one tree of Bel and one tree of Khajoor are standing. The land in dispute is courtyard (Sahan) lies in front of the petitioner's house and is being utilized for rearing cattle, parking vehicles and for rest under trees in summer days. The house of opposite parties no. 2 to 7 is lying behind the house of the petitioner and they have nothing to do with the land in question.
The petitioner wants to cover the said land by erecting boundary wall for which he collected bricks and started digging foundation. The opposite parties no. 2 to 7 hurled abuses and restrained the petitioner in raising construction and also tried to disposes the petitioner forcibly. The petitioner feeling aggrieved filed a regular suit for permanent injunction and also moved an application under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C for grant of temporary injunction. The petitioner has also moved an application along with a regular suit under Rule 13 of the General Rules Civil with prayer to entertain the suit in summer vacation considering urgency in the matter. The learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Sitapur passed the impugned order and refused to entertain the application for urgency.
Submission of learned counsel for the petition is that learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Sitapur be directed to consider and decide the application of the petitioner for grant of temporary injunction expeditiously and in the meantime the opposite parties no. 2 to 7 be restrained from interfering in petitioner's possession over the land in dispute in any manner.
I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record.
Since the issue involves the disputed question of fact, therefore, Civil Court is the competent forum to consider and decide the same on merits. Therefore, it is provided that if any suit is prosecuted by the petitioner on re-opening of the Court after summer vacation the petitioner's application for temporary injunction will be considered and decided by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Sitapur as per law. However, it is provided that till filing of the suit or for a period of one week from today, which ever is earlier, all the parties will maintain status-quo with respect to land in question.
With the aforesaid directions, writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 28.6.2010 Shahnaz