Court No. - 33
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7921 of 2018 Petitioner :- Shankar And 2 Others Respondent :- Civil Judge (Junior Division) / Fast Track Court, Moradabad And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kshitij Shailendra Counsel for Respondent :- Pranjal Mehrotra,Satish Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Heard Sri Kshitij Shailendra for the petitioners; Sri Pranjal Mehrotra for the respondent no. 3; Sri Satish Chaturvedi for the respondent no. 2; and perused the record.
The petitioners had instituted Suit No. 120 of 2003 for permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain Moradabad Development Authority and other defendants from demolishing or damaging the constructions of the petitioners. On application 6-C, seeking temporary injunction, an order directing the parties to maintain status quo was initially passed. While the application 6-C was pending, in the meantime, the suit itself was dismissed for non prosecution. To restore the suit application under Order 9, Rule 9 C.P.C. was filed. During the pendency of the application under Order 9, Rule 9 C.P.C., an application for interim protection was moved. On which, interim protection was initially granted. Subsequently, the application under Order 9, Rule 9 C.P.C. was allowed and the suit was restored. In the meantime, Paschimanchal Electricity Distribution, Division-1, Moradabad moved an application for impleadment, which was allowed.
The grievance of the petitioners is that the interim protection, which was earlier granted, was time bound and was not extended, despite prayer, and only dates have been fixed. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner is that the court below be directed to consider and decide the pending injunction application 6-C at the earliest and, in the meantime, the parties be restrained from raising any construction over the suit land.
It appears that the petition was filed on 11.10.2018, when, already, 11.10.2018 was the date fixed before the court below.
Sri Kshitij Shailendra, who has appeared for the petitioners, submits that now a date after Deepawali vacation has been fixed before the court below.
Under the circumstances, since the application of the petitioners for interim protection is pending before the court below and both sides are represented not only here but before the court below also, this petition is disposed off by requiring the court concerned to ensure expeditious disposal of the pending application 6-C, if possible, on the next date and if, for some reason, it is not possible to dispose off the application 6-C on the next date fixed, then the prayer for the petitioners for interim protection shall be considered by the court below.
Needless to add that before passing the order, both sides shall be heard by the court below.
Order Date :- 30.10.2018 Pkb/