Court No. - 18
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6709 of 2018 Petitioner :- Shiv Kumari and 5 others Respondent :- Muhammad Iliyas And 04 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pavan Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
In view of the order, which is proposed to be passed, notices need not go to the private respondents.
The petitioners are before this Court assailing the order impugned dated 27.4.2018 passed by learned District Judge, Deoria in Misc. Appeal No.12 of 2018 (Muhammad Iliyas and others vs. Kunwar Ajay Singh) whereby he has directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the disputed property, meanwhile and for direction to the respondents not to interfere in their peaceful possession in pursuance of the impugned order dated 27.4.2018.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that one Ajai Singh instituted Civil Suit No.86 of 2017 (Kunwar Ajay Singh vs. Fayyaz Ahmad and others) for permanent injunction alongwith an interim injunction application (6C) and after hearing learned counsel for the plaintiff, the trial court granted an interim injunction on 20.7.2017 in his favour. Meanwhile, the respondents had also instituted Civil Suit No.153 of 2016 (Mohd. Iliyas and ors vs. Kunwar Ajay Singh) on 8.9.2016 in respect of their plot nos.2105 and 2103 alongwith interim injunction application. After hearing both the parties the trial court rejected the interim injunction application on 16.4.2018. Challenging the order dated 16.4.2018 the respondents filed Misc. Appeal No.12 of 20189 and without controverting the finding recorded by the trial court the lower appellate Court has passed the impugned order ex-parte on 27.4.2018. No doubt while passing the order impugned dated 27.4.2018 status quo has been directed to be maintained by the parties but the same would not be applicable on the petitioners as at that point of time the petitioners were not impleaded as party in the matter.
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and perused the order impugned and finds that the lower appellate Court has recorded categorical findings of fact 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 orders impugned in this writ petition.
So far as the order impugned is concerned, the same is applicable quo the parties in the matter. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, he has remedy to move an appropriate application for his impleadment in the aforesaid appeal.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 11.9.2018 RKP