Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5942 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ram Vyas And Another Respondent :- Bhogi Prasad And 16 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Srivastava
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
In view of the order, which is proposed to be passed today, notices need not go to the private respondent.
Petitioners are before this Court assailing the validity of order dated 17.07.2018 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mohammadabad, Ghazipur in Original Suit no.503/2018 (Bhogi Prasad vs. Feku and others), by which the interim injunction application (6-C) filed by the plaintiff- respondents has been allowed on the ground that the matter is urgent in nature and the records so submitted by the plaintiff-respondents clearly reflects that their names are recorded as bhumidhar with transferable rights over the land in dispute.
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and finds that the Court below has recorded categorical findings of fact after examining the record and unless these findings are shown perverse or contrary to record resulting in grave injustice to petitioner, in writ jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court exercising restricted and narrow jurisdiction would not be justified in interfering with the same. In supervisory jurisdiction of this Court over subordinate Courts, the scope of judicial review is very limited and narrow. It is not to correct the errors in the orders of the court below but to remove manifest and patent errors of law and jurisdiction without acting as an appellate authority. The Court finds no justification warranting interference with the order impugned in this writ petition.
Once the Court has declined to interfere with the impugned order, then learned counsel for the petitioner prays that a direction be issued to the court below to decide the the objection of petitioner pending aforesaid suit within stipulated time.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Shiv Cotex Versus Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd and others, 2011 (89) ALR " It is high time that courts become sensitive to delays in justice delivery system and realize that adjournments do dent the efficacy of judicial process and if this menace is not controlled adequately, the litigant public may lose faith in the system sooner than later. The Courts, particularly Trial Courts, must ensure that on every date of hearing, effective progress takes place in the suit."
Considering the above, this petition stands disposed of with the direction upon the Court concerned to consider and decide the aforesaid objection, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, except upon payment of cost.
Order Date :- 23.8.2018 A. Pandey