The present petition is directed against order dated 15.05.2009 passed by the learned first appellate court in Civil Misc. Appeal No.75 of 2008. The petitioner herein is the opponent in the said appeal.
The said appeal was preferred by the original plaintiff upon being aggrieved by a common order dated 14.07.2008 passed by the learned trial Court below Exh.5 and Exh.23. By Exh.5 the original plaintiff prayed for interim relief and by Exh.23 the original defendant prayed for counter-interim relief in their counter-claim (Exh.22). The learned trial Court passed order on 14.07.2008 by which the original plaintiff was aggrieved. Hence, the appeal by the plaintiff before the learned first appellate court. By the impugned order dated 15.05.2009 the learned first appellate court accepted the appeal and set aside the order dated 14.07.2008 and granted interim relief in favour of the appellant i.e. the original plaintiff. Thus, the opponent in the appeal i.e. the original defendant has preferred the present petition.
The suit property is an agricultural land, which the petitioner claims to have purchased from the father of the present respondent Nos.1 to
3. Subsequently, the dispute as regards the said sale transaction seems to have arisen between the parties. The heirs/legal representatives of the original (alleged) seller have disputed the sale transaction as well as the alleged sale deed. Certain proceedings under Section 84-C the Tenancy Act, were also initiated and which culminated into order passed by the competent authority.
As far as the present petition is concerned, Mr.Suthar, learned advocate has appeared for the petitioner and Mr.Vakil, learned advocate has appeared for the respondents.
Upon hearing the learned advocate for the petitioner, it has emerged that on almost all issues there are disputes and differences between the parties. In other words, the petition essentially, materially and substantially involve enumerable disputed questions of fact.
The sale deed is in dispute, whether the petitioner-purchaser is an agriculturist or not is in dispute and the orders passed by the revenue authority are also being differently construed. The order passed by the learned trial Court was in favour of the original defendant and the learned first appellate court's order is in favour of the original plaintiff.
The issues which are involved are such which are not capable of being decided in the present petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. They essentially and necessarily require the parties to lead evidence. Therefore, the only proper and practical way of resolving the dispute is that the parties must lead evidence to establish their respective case and this can be done only if the suit proceedings are carried out.
It is not in dispute that the learned first appellate court's order was suspended by the said Court itself for a period of one month. However, since 15.06.2009 the said order has come in operation and has remained in operation. This is one point which is not in dispute between the parties.
Thus, the learned first appellate court's order has remained in operation for more than 15 months.
Under the circumstances, it would not be proper to grant any interim relief, at this stage, against the said order. Furthermore, since the issues involved in the matter are such which cannot be decided without leading evidence, maintaining the petition here also would not serve the purpose. Under the circumstances, it appears that the below mentioned order would meet the ends of justice.
Since the learned first appellate court's order has not been stayed in the present proceedings and it has remained in operation since last 15 months, any interim relief against the said order ought not be granted at this stage after 15 months as the fact situation at the site might have undergone change and equities also might have changed, hence an interim relief against the impugned order is not being granted.
However, the learned trial Court is requested to expedite the suit being Regular Civil Suit No.423 of 2007 and to make endavour to decide the said suit as early as possible, preferably by 30.06.2011.
In the meantime, all the parties to the suit proceedings will maintain status-quo with regard to the suit property so as to balance the equities. It is further directed that any third party interest will not be created in any manner whatsoever and any charge or transfer or alienation of the suit property will not be created or effected in any manner whatsoever without advance intimation to the learned trial Court.
With the aforesaid clarifications and directions, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
[K.M.THAKER, J] *** Bhavesh* Top