Court No. - 42
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9813 of 2019 Petitioner :- Durga Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Bhan Gupta,Karunesh Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
(Oral)
1. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for and is granted leave during the course of the day to correct the prayer clause, in which incorrect Suit number has been mentioned.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
3. This petition has been filed, challenging the order dated 19.11.2019 passed by the learned trial court in Regular Suit No.800 of 2019 to the extent that the trial court has observed that without hearing the other parties i.e. the defendants, no ad- interim injunction can be granted to the petitioners, as prayed for.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are in possession of Arazi No.156, ad-measuring 12-1/2 dismal, situated at Mauza lachchhipur, Tappa, Qasba and Pargana Haweli, Tehsil and District Gorakhpur. They have constructed their house thereon and are living since several decades. The Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur also given a House number to the said constructions of the petitioners. Since the Avas Evam Vikas Parishad had issued a notice to the petitioners, asking them to remove their constructions over the land in question on 2.8.2019, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.26937 of 2019 before this Court, challenging the said notice. This Court directed the petitioners to make a representation to the Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, which was to be decided by it within the time specified by this Court and till disposal of such representation, the constructions made by the petitioners were not to be demolished. The petitioners' representation was rejected on 15.11.2019 by the Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, who has directed removal of the petitioners' constructions over the land in question through Police force. The petitioners being aggrieved, filed Suit no.800 of 2019, praying for permanent injunction, restraining the respondents from interfering in the possession of the petitioners. An application for temporary injunction was also filed. The prior notice of filing a Regular Suit was given to the defendant-respondents under Section 80 of CPC and this has been noted by the trial court in the order impugned. Yet the Paper No.7-C, the application for temporary injunction moved by the petitioners has not been disposed of and only opportunity has been given to the respondents to file their objections to it.
5. This Court has perused the order impugned. It appears that the learned trial court gave the defendant-respondents time to file their objections to the Paper No.7-C, which was to be disposed of on 17.12.2019. The Survey Amin was also directed to inspect the property in dispute and submit his report thereon by the next date fixed.
6. This Court cannot find any infirmity in the order impugned.
7. The petitioners have not produced any document before the learned trial court of their ownership over the property in dispute, and admittedly the respondents were claiming ownership over the said property.
8. Since the respondents have been given time to file their objection to the application for temporary injunction by the trial court, it is expected that the respondents shall file the same at the earliest and the application for temporary injunction moved by the petitioners shall be considered thereafter by the learned trial court, say within a period of eight weeks from the date, a certified copy of this order is produced before the court concerned.
9. The writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 17.12.2019 Sachin