Court No. - 18
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4471 of 2018 Petitioner :- Pandit Ram Padarath Purya Madhyamik Vidyalaya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Vishal Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Sri R.V.Mishra appears for the plaintiff-petitioner and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel appears for the State-respondents and Sri Diwakar Singh appears for the respondent no. 6 Gaon Sabha.
Plaintiff-petitioner has preferred the present writ petition assailing the order impugned dated 31.5.2018 whereby an application under Section 151 C.P.C. has been turned down by the learned Civil Judge(S.D.), Fast Track Court, Allahabad.
Heard rival submissions and perused the record.
After perusing the record in question and the order impugned, the Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the order impugned and as such declined to interfere in the order impugned.
Confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner submits that the plaintiff-petitioner has preferred a suit being Original Suit No. 83 of 2018 (Pandit Ram Padarath Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Vs. State of U.P. and others) along with application 6-C under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, which is pending consideration before the Civil Judge (S.D.), Allahabad in which the notice has been issued to the respondents. Petitioner is running an institution upto class VIIIth on the suit property since 1987 with full knowledge to the local authorities and at this stage, in case, if interim protection is not granted, he will suffer irreparable loss and as such, requested that till disposal of the application 6-C, the parties may maintain status quo as on today with regard to the suit property. It has also been informed that the date fixed before the court concerned in the pending application 6-C, is 10.8.2018.
Learned counsels for the respondents have no objection in case the injunction application in the suit in question is directed to be decided expeditiously.
A Constitution Bench of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu & Ors., 1992 Supp (2) SCC 651 at para 126 has observed as under:-
"The purpose of interlocutory orders is to preserve in status-quo the rights of the parties, so that, the proceedings do not become infructuous by any unilateral overt acts by one side or the other during its pendency. One of the contentions urged was as to the invalidity of the amendment for non-compliance with the proviso to Article 368(2) of the Constitution. It has now been unanimously held that Paragraph 7 attracted the proviso to article 368(2). The interlocutory orders in this case were necessarily justified so that, no land-slide changes were allowed to occur rendering proceedings ineffective and infructuous."
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue and with the consent, the writ petition stands disposed of asking the court concerned to decide the injunction application in the suit in question preferably on the next date fixed but in any case within two months thereafter but certainly after giving opportunity to the parties concerned and without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. For a period of two months or till the disposal of the injunction application, whichever is earlier, status quo as on today shall be maintained by the parties qua the property in dispute.
Order Date :- 26.7.2018 A.K.Srivastava