RAMESH Vs. GRAMIN UDDAR SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties. The orig inal plaintiff has filed the instant revision application challenging the order passed during the pendency of Misc. Civil Appeal No. 411 of 1995 by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Nagpur, whereby during the pendency of the Misc. Civil Appeal he had stayed the order passed by the Trial Court on 13.11.1995 staying operation of the order dated 6.7.1995 whereunder the application was transferred from Kamptee to Kokali. Miscellaneous Civil Appeal undisputedly is still pending before the learned Additional District Judge.

(2.) It is contended by Mr. Shukla, learned Counsel for the applicant, and rightly also, that the mere fact that someone has joined at Kamptee in place of the applicant and has taken over the charge of his post alone should not have been treated as a ground for staying the order to stay granted by the Trial Court in favour of the applicant. Mr. Shukla, therefore, contended that the exercise of power by the learned Additional District Judge while passing the impugned order has to be held as vitiated and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Mr. Shukla further also contended that the non-applicants had filed application invoking the jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC. The learned Additional District Judge, in the submission of Mr. Shukla, could not have passed the impugned order in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) No doubt, as rightly contended and observed hereinabove already, joining of a person in place of the. applicant at Kamptee alone cannot be treated to be a ground for refusing the interim order in favour of the applicant as was sought before the Court below. Even then, insofar as the instant matter is concerned, it is apparent that from the date of the transfer order dated 6.7.1995 till date the applicant is not working in aschool at Kamptee, though there was some order enabling to join at Kamptee passed by the Trial Court on 13.11.1995 which remained in operation till 7.12.1995 at least. Insofar as exercise of power by the first Appellate Court is concerned, exercise can be related to the powers conferred on the Appellate Court under Order 41, Rule 5 C.P.C. Merely because the title refers to the provision of Section 151 CPC in the application by the non-applicant it cannot be treated to be sufficient to term the impugned order by the learned Additional District Judge as illegal. The main Misc. Civil Appeal challenging the interim order of the Trial Court, as already stated, is pending before the Additional District Judge and the learned Additional District Judge has himself directed expedited hearing of the same. In the wake of the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, it does not appear to be necessary to exercise the revisional jurisdiction at this stage. Ends of justice can be met if suitable direction is issued to the Additional District Judge to decide the appeal within a reasonable time. It is in this view of the matter, with going into the merits of the order impugned in the present revision application the following order is passed : Since it is felt that no interference is necessary at this stage with the order impugned in the instant civil revision application, the instant revision application stands dismissed. The learned 2nd Additional District Judge, however, is directed to decide the Misc. Civil Appeal No. 411 of 1995 within a period of one month from the receipt of this order. Revision Application dismissed.