Court No. - 18
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5909 of 2018 Petitioner :- Rajendra Tripathi Respondent :- Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No.5 Allahabad And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Agrawal
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Shri Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel for the plaintiff- petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
In view of the order proposed to be passed, notices need not go to private respondents.
The plaintiff-petitioner is before this Court for following reliefs:-
"I. Issue an order or direction in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the nature and possession of the suit property and not to raise any construction over the property in question; during the pendency of the Suit No.2604/13 (Rajendra Tripathi v. Rajendra Yadav & Ors.);
II. In alternative, issue an order or direction in exercise of supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, directing the respondent no.1-Civil Judge (JD), Court No.5, Allahabad to adjudicate and decide the injunction application being paper no.6C on the next date i.e. 23.08.2018 itself, without granting any adjournment to any party."
At the very outset, Shri Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner states that private respondent namely Umakant son of Ram Bharose, being fully aware of the fact that the suit proceedings in question are going on, has approached before the Division Bench of this Court in Writ-C No.22791 of 2018 (Umakant v. Senior Superintendent of Police & Ors.) with an innocuous relief for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the construction of his house situated in the village Fatehpur Kayasthan, Pargana Nawabganj, Tehsil Soraon, Distt. Allahabad. It is also categorically averred that at no point of time while filing the aforesaid writ petition the contesting defendant has ever mentioned regarding the pendency of the suit in question though he has already put in appearance in the suit proceeding. The aforementioned writ petition was disposed of on 12.7.2018 with direction to make fresh representation before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad ventilating his grievances. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that at no point of time the said representation has ever been decided by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad. He submits that taking shelter of the direction issued by this Court dated 12.7.2018 the contesting respondent is raising unabated construction. Relevant photographs has also been appended along with the writ petition. It is apprised that on the previous date the contesting respondents have sought for adjournment, which was allowed at the cost of Rs.50/- and the matter is posted for 23.08.2018 for rehearing and as such request has been made that there is grave urgency in the mater and the trial court may be directed to decide the injunction application in question on the next date fixed.
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 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue, the writ petition stands disposed of finally with a direction to the court concerned to consider and decide the aforesaid interim injunction application (6-C) in the suit proceedings in question in accordance with law preferably on the next date fixed and in any case within two months thereafter.
Order Date :- 21.8.2018 SP/