RAM GOPAL AGARWAL Vs. BHIMSEN SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the leamed single Judge sitting at Shillong in Civil Rule No. 209 (SH)/97 dated 2nd December, 1997, by which the learned Single Judge issued the following direction:

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel on both the sides. Aft affidavit sworn by the appellant No. 2 in regard to the facts and circumstances, has been presented by Mr. P.C. Deka in this case today. The learned counsel for the respondents argued two aspects: Firstly, that since the writ petitioners had no alternative but to present a petition invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the writ court rightly considered the reliefs sought for in the petition and granted the same, this court need not interfere with that order. The other aspect is that the writ appeal, as brought by the appellants herein, is not -maintainable inasmuch as the writ court is competent to modify its order in the event of the opposite party approaching the court by way of an application seeking to modify the same. But for reasons known to the opponents, this action was not taken in the instant case for modifying the interim order granted by the writ court. Therefore, the appellate court need not interfere with that order of the learned Single Judge.

(3.) Mr. P.C. Deka, the learned counsel for the appellants, however, argued that since the learned Single Judgegranted reliefs in favour of the writ petitioner knowing fully well that the trial court was dealing with the legal issues arising out of the suit for restoration and declaration, and that a date had been'decision of the same including the question of jurisdiction, the learned Single Judge ought to have seen that when an issue regarding declaration of rights of the parties and, restoration of electricity to the tenants was pending before the trial court under Section 7 of the Meghalaya Urban Areas Rent Control Act, it was not open to the writ petitioners to have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and that, is not the remedy available under law. The other submission of Mr. Deka, the learned counsel for the appellants is that presuming for the purpose of argument that the order made by the Munsiff on 11th November, 1997 in Title Suit No. 16(H)/1997 whereby the interim order granted earlier by him was ordered to be stayed till disposal of the petition, is concerned, in the event of the applicant having been aggrleved by this order, it was open for such applicant to seek for appropriate reliefs either in a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, CPC, in short, or in an appeal under Order XLIII CP.C. In other words, the legal argument of Mr. P.C. Deka, the learned counsel for the appellants, is that not following the remedy available under the Statute, resorting to the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution would not be available to the petitioners which factum the writ petitioners failed to see. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge seeking to grant reliefs in favour of the writ petitioners cannot be sustained in law.