ZILA PANCHAYAT PARISHAD, MUZAFFARNAGAR Vs. IN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Respondent No. 16 has filed a suit for permanent injunction being original Suit No. 26 of 2005 against respondents No. 3 to 8 and the petitioner in which an application for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 , C.P.C. is pending disposal. An earlier suit being Suit No. 84 of 1975 was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No. 3 to 8 for permanent injunction against the petitioner in which some injunction was granted and the suit has passed through several stages up to second appeal and also before the Apex Court. While the matter of temporary injunction in the subsequent suit was being considered a question arose as to whether a temporary injunction which was granted in the earlier suit No. 84 of 1975 was still continuing or not. It was submitted by the learned counsel that the court directed for obtaining question-answer from the court where such earlier suit was pending. On an application under Rule 225 of General Rules (Civil) for obtaining such question-answer some dispute arose between the parties about the continuance of the injunction order in that suit and for that purpose an order dated 16.1.2006 was passed by the trial court making certain adjudication about the continuance of the temporary injunction order. That order was made subject to a revision under Sec. 115, C.P.C. which has been decided at the admission stage itself by the District Judge vide order dated 16.1.2006. The revision was not found maintainable and it was dismissed in limine. The petitioner being aggrieved with the said order has moved this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) From the submissions made by the respective counsel for the parties and from the aforesaid facts which are not disputed it is more than obvious that an application for obtaining question-answer under Rule 225 of the General Rules (Civil)will not entail passing a judicial order by the Court. Whatsoever order there may be in pursuance to certain clarification sought in the matter by the office, such order shall always be treated as an administrative order and not a judicial order. Therefore, if there is any revision under Sec. 115, C.P.C. that will definitely be not maintainable. Therefore, in such view of the matter I am not inclined to interfere against such order of the revisional court in the present petition.

(3.) As regards the disposal of the pending temporary injunction matter before the trial court in this subsequent Suit No. 26 of 2005, the practice of the court to record a judicial order on the basis of reply to such question-answer on such temporary injunction matter is highly uncalled for. If the matter is to be seen in the light whether in the earlier suit the temporary injunction is still continuing or not the best course was to obtain a certified copy of the order or to summon the record to satisfy itself with the entire progress made in that regard in the earlier suit. Thus, the very direction of the court, as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the parties for obtaining question-answer from the court where the earlier suit was pending was wholly illegal and uncalled for. Any subsequent development made in that regard is also to be treated as inconsequential. If the trial court has to decide the temporary injunction matter it will obtain the record of the earlier suit for its perusal and then pass suitable orders in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Certified copy of this order be supplied within 24 hours on payment of usual charges. Order Accordingly.