RAM RUP Vs. FIRST ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE JAUNPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. Mr. D. S. M. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, whilesupporting the application for recalling the order dated 27-4-1998, contends that the order was passed in his absence. After having gone through the application and hearing Mr. Tripathi, it appears that there were sufficient grounds that prevented him from appearing in the case when the matter was taken up on the said date. Therefore, the application is allowed and the order dated 27-4-1998 is recalled.

(2.) IMMEDIATELY thereafter Mr. Tripathi asked, in view of urgency of the matter, to take up this matter for argu ments. Accordingly, it is taken up for hear ing.

(3.) IN order to appreciate the conten tion, it would be useful to quote said order hereinafter: "original suit No. 250 of 1991 was filed for mandatory injunction restraining the respon dents 3 to 5 from interfering with the possession of the petitioners in respect of the suit property from making any construction thereon and demolishing or damaging any construction ex isting thereon. Alongwith the said suit, an ap plication for temporary injunction was also filed. An interim order was issued thereon vide order dated 14-3-91. Ultimately, the said application was contested by the respondent No. 3 and the application for temporary injunction was dis missed by the order dated 13-8-1991. An appeal was filed, numbered as Appeal No. 279 of 1991. The Additional District Judge, Jaunpur by his order dated 8- 10-1991 dismissed the said ap peal. These are the two orders which are chal lenged in the present writ petition. The question boils down to the grant or refusal of injunction in between the two private individuals who do not have any public or. statutory to discharge. Grant of injunction in such case would amount to grant of mandamus which is not available in dispute between two such private individuals. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ganga Sharon v. Civil Judge, Hapur, AIR 1991 All 114, has held that such writ petition is not maintainable. Following the ratio in the case of Ganga Sharon (supra), this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. There will be no order as to costs. The interim order dated 24-7- 1992shall stand discharged. "