Court No. - 18
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4937 of 2018 Petitioner :- Smt. Sanju Pandey and another Respondent :- Rajendra Pandey Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Malviya Counsel for Respondent :- Ashok Kumar Rai,Rajendra Kumar
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
The supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard Shri S.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners and Shri A.K. Rai, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent.
The petitioners are before this Court assailing the order dated 11.7.2018 passed by the District Judge, Ghazipur in Civil Appeal No.41 of 2017 (Rajendra Pandey vs. Smt. Sanju Pandey and another).
Record in question reflects that one Rajendra Pandey filed a Suit No.906 of 2014 (Rajendra Pandey vs. Smt. Raju Pandey and another) alongwith temporary injunction application before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ghazipur and the Civil Judge (Senior Division) has rejected the 6C application on 28.7.2018. The said order was assailed by the plaintiff before the District Judge, Ghazipur by preferring Civil Appeal No.41 of 2017 (Rajendra Pandey vs. Smt. Sanju Pandey and another). By the impugned order dated 11.7.2018, the District Judge has allowed the said appeal and set aside the order of the trial court dated 28.7.2017. He has also allowed the application 6C filed by the plaintiff and restrained the defendants- petitioners from interfering in the peaceful owner, possession and use of the plaintiff over the suit property.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the family settlement has already been taken place and half-half share of house no.56 has been divided by Smt. Devkali Devi in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant. The petitioner no.2 executed the Will deed on 24.12.2013 in favour of the petitioner no.1 and the name of petitioner no.1 has been entered in the family register. The injunction application filed in the aforesaid suit was rightly rejected by the trial court on 28.7.2017 but without considering the relevant aspect of the matter the District Judge passed the impugned order and set aside the order dated 28.7.2017. The petitioner is still actual physical possession over the land in dispute but the respondents are trying to evict the petitioner from the land in dispute in the garb of the order passed by the District Judge.
Arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner-defendant has been resisted by Shri A.K. Rai, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent by contending that rightful order has been passed and no interference is required with the order impugned.
Once after going through the record in question the Court has declined to interfere with the impugned order, then learned counsel for the petitioner prays that a direction may be issued to the court below to decide the aforesaid suit within stipulated time without being influenced with the impugned order.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Shiv Cotex Versus Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd and others, 2011 (89) ALR 232, has made the following observations:-
".................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 expedite the proceeding of pending Suit No.906 of 2014 (Rajendra Pandey vs. Smt. Raju Pandey and another) and conclude the same on the merits of the case without influencing with the findings so recorded by the lower appellate court dated 11.7.2018, in accordance with law, without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, except upon payment of cost. Till disposal of the aforesaid suit the parties shall maintain status quo as on today with regard to the suit property.
Order Date :- 26.7.2018 RKP