BHAGIRATH Vs. CHHAGANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in M.P. No. 1386/92 are defendants in Civil Suit No. 27 -A/91, pending in the Court of Civil Judge Thandla Camp Petlawad. That suit is instituted by the respondent/plaintiff and contains the reliefs of declaration of title and perpetual injunction. In that suit, the respondent applied for orders for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC.

(2.) ON hearing the petitioners, the trial Court allowed the application and granted order of temporary injunction on 19.8.91 (Annexure A) forbidding the petitioners from interfering with the possession of the respondent, on suit -property. Aggrieved by the order granting temporary injunction, the petitioners preferred Misc. Appeal No. 0/91 (Annexure B) before the Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Jhabua alongwith the application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act. Appellate Court passed the order of status quo and posted the application for recording of the evidence. Eventually, on 6.4.92, the appeal was dismissed as barred by time on the conclusion that no sufficient cause was made out to condone the delay. The order is Annexure D. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners have presented writ petition No. 1386/92. The petitioner No. 1 also filed a Civil Suit No. 31 -A/91 in the same Court against the respondent concerning the same property. In that suit, the petitioner No. 1 applied for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC. That application was rejected on 19.8.91. Against that order, the petitioner No. 1 filed Misc. Appeal No. 0/91 before the Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Jhabua. That appeal also accompanied the application under S. S of the Limitation Act. The appellate Court granted the order of status quo and posted the application for recording or the evidence. Finally, on 6.4.92, (Annexure E) the appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the conclusion that no sufficient cause was made out to condone the delay. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner No. 1 has filed separate writ petition M.P. No. 801/92.

(3.) THIS Court on 7.5.92 passed the order of maintenance of status quo in terms of the order passed by the appellate Court in M.P. No. 801/92. This is how the order of status quo is continued. This order is not prejudicial to the parties. Shri Gupta submitted that appellate Court has committed the error of law and that in refusing to condone delay in both the appeals the Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law. He, therefore, prayed for setting aside the order of the appellate Court in both the petitions.