VIJAY KUMAR Vs. CIVIL JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing Civil Judge (Junior Division), respondent No. 1 to decide the suit expeditiously. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the plaintiff Rajeev Kumar Goel has filed a suit alleging therein that he is co -owner of the land situated at Khasara No. 518 area 0.1000 hectare, Khasra No. 741 area 0.0800 hectare and Khasra No. 742 area 0.1260 hectare. It was stated that the defendant No. 1 got a sale deed executed on 27.6.2000 from his wife i.e. defendant No. 2 acting as attorney of Kamal Goel in respect of 1/6th share. According to the plaintiff since it is a joint holding and, therefore, defendant No. 1 has no right to raise constructions on the joint property. The plaintiff, therefore, has prayed for a decree of permanent injunction in his favour. Alongwith the plaint the plaintiff respondent has also filed an application for injunction. On 23.11.2001 injunction was granted under Order XXXIX, Rule 1, C.P.C.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed an application for vacating injunction order on 4.12.2001 and the same is still pending and has not been disposed of. Order XXXIX, Rule 1 provides power of learned Judge in granting temporary injunction. Order XXXIX, Rule 3 provides that before injunction the Court to direct notices to the opposite parties.

(3.) THE injunction order was passed as back as in the year 2001 and since then proceedings are pending. Neither interim injunction order has been finally disposed of nor the suit has yet proceeded. The grievance of the petitioner, therefore, is that since the injunction order is operating against the petitioner and he is unable to enjoy the property, it is desirable in the interest of justice that the suit itself may be disposed of expeditiously.