JAGAT SINGH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, DISTT DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this Writ Petition the petitioner seeks order or direction in the nature of certiorary quashing the order dated 14.01.2005 (Annexure No.8) and dated 25.1.2005 (Annexure No. 10) passed by the respondent no. 2 and 1, the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Rishikesh and the District Judge, Dehradun, respectively. By the order dated 14.01.2005, the learned Civil Judge rejected the ad interim injunction application (6 -C2) moved by the plaintiff -petitioners in Original Suit No. 44 of 2004, Jagat Singh and others Vs. Brijbhushan. By the impugned order dated 25.01.2005, the learned District Judge Dehradun, recalled the Original Suit No. 44 of 2004k, Jagat Singh Vs. Brij Bhushan, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Dehradun and transferred the same to the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Dehradun by observing that Suit No. 664 of 2004 Aurovally Ashram Trust. V. Kriti Singh is' also pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Dehradun where the plaintiffs of the case (defendants) were restrained by the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) and in that case also the injunction was granted in favour of the Aurovalley Ahsram Trust.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the plaintiff -petitioners filed a suit on 3.12.2004 before the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Dehradun against the defendant respondent for permanent injunction, which was registered as Original Suit No. 44 of 2004. Along with the plaint, the plaintiffs filed application for temporary injunction for restraining the defendant -respondent from interfering with the property in suit during the pendency of the case. This application of the plaintiffs was rejected vide order dated 14.01.2005. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs (petitioners) preferred a Miscellaneous appeal on 25.1.2005 before the District Judge, which was registered as Misc. Civil Appeal No.8 of 2005.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order passed by the order dated 25.01.2005 in Misc. Civil Appeal No.8 of 2005, the plaintiff -petitioners have come up before this Court mainly on the ground that the District Judge acted arbitrarily in violation of the provisions of Section 100 C.P.C. and that the Suit No. 44 of 2004 filed by the petitioners was an earlier suit with same cause of action between the same parties, therefore, the proceedings of the subsequent suit No. 644 of 2004 could not prevail over the proceedings of the earlier suit under the provisions of Section 10 of the C.P.C., which created a bar in respect of subsequent suit filed before another court on the same cause of action.