MAHATAM Vs. MOTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present case patta was said to have been executed in favour of Mahatam against which an application for cancellation was moved by Moti. The case was under consideration with the Additional Collector, Azamgarh and in course of that proceeding, the Additional Collector is said to have passed first order restraining the revisionist, Mahatam from fishing. Lateron the learned trial court changed its order and permitted patta - holder, revisionist Mahatam to do fishing in the disputed pond. Lateron the learned trial court on 23-8-86 passed an other order restraining both the part from fishing. Against this order the revisionist, Mahatam filed a revision before the learned Additional Commissioner who has recommended vide his order dated 30-4-87 for setting aside the order of the trial court.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The learned counsel for the revisionist supporting the reference argued that since he was patta-holder the order of the trial court dated 21-8-86 permitting the revisionist, Mahatam, to continue fishing was justified and the second order of the trial court dated 23-8-86 was not proper and as such the learned Additional Commissioner has rightly recommended for setting aside the order of the trial court dated 23-8-86. The learned counsel for the O. P. in reply argued that all these orders of the learned trial court are interlocutory orders by way of granting stay or refusing to stay and as such the revision before the learned Additional Commissioner was not maintainable and his recommendation should not be accepted. He pointed out that the learned trial court has rightly restrained both the parties from fishing since the patta was challenged by the O. P. and the matter was under consideration before the trial court.

(3.) I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. I agree with the arguments of the learned counsel for the O. P. and hold the view that the order passed by the learned trial court permitting one party to fish or restraining both the parties from fishing or any similar stay order in this regard are all interlocutory in nature which have been passed in exercise of his discretion by the learned trial court in course of the proceedings pending before him. I consider these orders interlocutory in nature which does not cut at the very root of the case nor amounts to a case decided. Interference in the impugned interlocutory order of the learned trial court by the learned Additional Commissioner by way of recommendation to this court for allowing the revision and setting aside the order of the learned trial court is not justified and is neither legal nor proper. I am of the view that the revision before the learned Additional Commissioner against the impugned order of the learned trial court was interlocutory in nature which did not cut at the very root of the case and no revision was maintainable. Accordingly the reference made by the learned Additional Commissioner dated 30-4-87 is not acceptable and is rejected. However the learned trial court is directed to decide the case expeditiously as far as possible fixing successive dates.