Court No. - 30
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3001 of 2018 Petitioner :- Shiv Nath Prasad Khandelwal Respondent :- Incharge District Judge/ Additional District Judge Court No.1 Mau And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Himanshu Pandey,Sanjay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Surendra Kumar Chaubey Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard Sri Himanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Chaubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2.
Present application has been filed for setting aside the order dated 12.3.2018 passed by the Incharge District Judge / Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Mau in Civil Revision No. 16 of 2018.
By the impugned order the civil revision filed by the contesting respondent has been admitted and while admitting the civil revision it has been directed that the interim injunction application itself be decided by the court below, if possible, within a period of one month and in case any adjournment is unavoidable, the same shall be given on payment of heavy cost not less than Rs. 500/-.
Submission of learned counsel for the is that the revision has been filed without challenging the main order dated 7.2.2017 and it is only the consequential order dated 27.2.2018 has been challenged, therefore, the same is not maintainable.
Admittedly, the suit is of the year 1993 and inspite of the order of the lower revisional court dated 12.3.2018 impugned herein one month time for disposal of the interim injunction application but still the same is pending. It is also not in dispute that the contesting respondent was put in possession in the year 2002, which according to the petitioner was illegal. However, this is strongly being opposed by learned counsel for the respondent.
Be that as it may, the petitioner is at liberty to take all such grounds before the revisional court that are being asserted herein, I do not find any good to interfere in the present case.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, since the suit is pending since 1993, the revisional court shall make all efforts to decide the case, in accordance with law, expeditiously.
It is also expected that the suit itself shall be decided by the court below expeditiously by fixing short dates and no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to the parties preferably within a period of one year provided there is no other legal impediment.
With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the present petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.4.2018 Lalit Shukla