Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satrughan Chaudhary, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4.
In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice to opposite party No. 5 is dispense with.
It is alleged in the writ petition that the petitioner is the owner of land bearing Gata No. 344 situated in Village Muraini, Tehsil- Jaisinghpur, District- Sultanpur and he is a recorded tenure holder. The opposite party No. 5, who is husband of the present Gram Pradhan, started construction over the land in question, which in fact belongs to the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved by the illegal action on the part of the opposite party No. 5, approached before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No. 15, Sultanpur by means of the Regular Suit No. 359 of 2017 [Jagdamba Prasad v. Jitendra Kumar] for permanent injunction restraining the opposite party No. 5 from interfering in the peaceful possession of the property of the petitioner.
After considering the facts of the case, the Trial Court on 31.05.2017 passed the permanent injunction in the Regular Suit No. 359 of 2017 [Jagdamba Prasad v. Jitendra Kumar]. It has been further alleged in the writ petition that despite the permanent injunction passed by the Trial Court, the opposite party No. 5 is interfering in the peaceful possession of the land in question i.e. Gata No. 344 situated in Village Muraini, Tehsil- Jaisinghpur, District- Sultanpur and in regard to the same, an application under Order 39 Rule 2A C.P.C. [Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition] has been moved before the Court concerned.
In view of the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court for the following main reliefs:-
I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to enforce the order of learned Court below dated 31.05.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No. 15, Sultanpur, in Regular Suit No. 359/2017 (Jagdamba Prasad v. Jitendra Kumar) which is contained as annexure No. 1.
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 4 to ensure that no construction should be raised over the disputed land in terms of injunction granted by order dated 31.05.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No. 15, Sultanpur in Regular Suit No. 359/2017 (Jagdamba Prasad v. Jitendra Kumar).
III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties for paramount consideration of the order of the learned Court below to ensure that rule of law should be maintained and order of the court must be complied within its letter and spirits.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite the permanent injunction dated 31.05.2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No. 15, Sultanpur in Regular Suit No. 359/2017 (Jagdamba Prasad v. Jitendra Kumar), the opposite party No. 5 is interfering in the peaceful possession of the land in question, which in fact is in violation of interim injunction dated 31.05.2017.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has also moved an application under Order 39 Rule 2A and on the said application, the Trial Court has passed an order and issued the notices to the opposite parties and fixed the date on 17.10.2019 for objection as well as disposal of the application.
In view of the above, the prayer is to grant interim relief, as prayed for in the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, for the prayers sought in the writ petition, has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in 2010 (28) LCD 637 [Mohd. Hamja v. Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), LKO. and others].
Per contra, Sri Satrughan Chaudhary, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner has remedy to move an application before the Trial Court under Section 151 C.P.C. for seeking indulgence in the matter, where the dispute is pending, in regard to compliance of the order dated 31.05.2017, for which the petitioner has approached this Court.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an application before the Trial Court under Section 151 C.P.C. keeping in view the Law laid down by this Court in the case of Mohd. Hamja (supra). In case, such an application is moved before the Trial Court then, the Trial Court shall make an endeavour to decide the same expeditiously say within a period of four weeks, if possible, from the date of production of certified copy of this order after giving proper notice and opportunity of hearing to the opposite party No. 5 The writ petition is disposed of in above terms.
Order Date :- 30.8.2019 Arun/-