Court No. - 7
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3258 of 2021 Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Respondent :- Girish And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amitabh Agarwal
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
By means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.12.2020 whereby the order passed on 6-C2 application of the plaintiff-opposite party dated 04.11.2020 in Original Suit No.68 of 2020 has come to be stayed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in a suit filed by the opposite party bearing Original Suit No.68 of 2020 he filed a counter claim and also moved an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 for temporary injunction. Both the applications of the of the plaintiff-respondent 6-C2 and that of the present petitioner filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 had been taken up and decided vide a common judgment and order passed by the trial court dated 04.11.2020 and by which the 6-C2 application of the plaintiff was rejected and the miscellaneous application for temporary injunction moved by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 was considered and an order of temporary injunction was passed restraining the plaintiff from carrying at any demolition activity in respect of the north boundary of the suit property.
The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in respect to the order impugned is that against the said order the plaintiff had preferred a miscellaneous appeal only in respect of the order passed on his 6-C2 application by which the 6-C2 application was rejected and hence there was no occasion for the court below to have stayed the entire order dated 04.11.2020. He argues that once an application no.6-C2 was rejected, there was only option open for the court below to have granted injunction or to have approved the order of the court below, and in the absence of a miscellaneous appeal against the order dated 04.11.2020 passed in miscellaneous application of the present petitioner filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, there was no occasion to stay the entire composite order dated 04.11.2020.
He also draws attention of the Court towards the operative portion of the order and submits that the order was also not very clear and is in very vague language.
Upon perusal of the operative portion of the order, I find merit in the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Since the matter is still engaging attention in the miscellaneous appeal filed by the plaintiff and only an interim order is passed, I prefer to dispose of this petition with a direction to both the parties to maintain status quo during the pendency of the miscellaneous appeal and further direct the court below to consider the application of the plaintiff only in respect of the 6- C2 application unless another miscellaneous appeal is preferred in respect of the order dated 04.11.2020 allowing the application of petitioner filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and the order shall be passed within two months.
Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 Shahroz