NAGAR PANCHAYAT BADAWADA Vs. LAXMINARAYAN RATHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the defendant against an appellate order dated 26.9.2003 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Ratlam in Civil Appeal No. 21/2000 which arises out of an interim order passed by the learned Civil Judge Class II, Jaora dated 21.6.2000 in Civil Suit No. 33-A/2000.

(2.) I need not burden my order by narrating the detailed facts except those which are necessary. Plaintiff brought suit against the defendant i.e. the petitioner herein for declaration and injunction in respect of land survey No. 573/1149 measuring 0.002 situated in village Badawada, Tahsil Jaora, Distt. Ratlam. In this suit, plaintiff asked for temporary injunction u/s O. 39 (1) and (2) of CPC seeking restrain order for not interfering in his possession. The defendant contested the injunction application and succeeded in the trial. In other words the trial Court dismissed the injunction application holding that no prima facie case or balance of convenience or irreparable loss or injury in favour of the plaintiff is made out. This rejection was challenged by the plaintiff in appeal before the first appellate Court. The learned first appellate Judge by impugned order has allowed the appeal and as a consequence allowed the injunction application. As a result, the injunction application made by the plaintiff stand allowed restraining the defendant from interfering in the possession of plaintiff over the land in suit. Feeling aggrieved by this order of the first appellate Court, the defendant is in writ. Since right to file revision is curtailed drastically by way of amendment in section 115 of CPC hence defendant filed this writ under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Notice of this writ was issued to the respondents i.e. plaintiffs. 3. They are served and represented. Return is filed. Heard Shri S.C. Agrawal, learned counsel for petitioners and Shri R.S. Solanki, learned counsel for respondents. Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused record of the case, in my opinion, it would be in the interest of both parties that civil suit out of which this writ arises should be directed to be disposed of expeditiously. Since the suit for declaration and injunction is pending before the Civil Judge Class II and pleadings are already complete, the trial Court can be asked and dispose of the suit expeditiously. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the learned trial Judge who is seized of the civil suit to decide the same on merits after giving due opportunity to the parties strictly in accordance with law. It is made clear that plaintiffs who are in possession of the suit land shall not indulge into any delaying tactics and shall not claim adjournment to delay the trial only on the ground that they have got injunction in their favour by the appellate Court. In case if any such attempt is made, the trial Court shall be free to pass appropriate order by refusing to grant adjournment unless good case is made out to that effect. 4. It is also made clear that trial Court while deciding the suit shall be guided only by the evidence led by the parties and shall not be influenced by any of the observations made by the appellate Court. It is for the reason that the observations of the appellate Court are always based upon the limited evidence led in support of the injunction application. It is for this reason trial Court would decide the suit strictly on the basis of the evidence to be adduced by the parties oral as well as documentary. Since the defendant happens to be a civic body complaining inconvenience in the enjoyment of the land due to grant of injunction, the trial shall be completed preferably within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties before the trial Judge. It is with these observations this writ is finally disposed of. Parties to appear before the trial Court on 28.2.2005 and produce the copy of this order so that trial may begin.