ASHIS INVESTMENTLTD Vs. RANCHI INDUSTRIAL AREA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) <DJG>P.K.DEB,J.</DJG> 1. This Revision petition has arisen out of the order dated 4.2.1991 passed by the then judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Misc. Appeal No. 20 of 1991, whereby the injunction granted by the original court i.e. Sub Judge, I, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 49/91 in favour of plaintiff-petitioner vide order dated 15.5.1991 was set aside.

(2.) The admitted position remains that the plaintiff-petitioner came to possess the suit premises within the Namkum Industrial Area on settlement being made one Ganesh Kumar and that the Ganesh was a settlee under the Opposite Party--RIADA. That Ganesh was an employee of the petitioner and the settlement of the land with the petitioner was made on monthly rental basis and then the petitioner constructed a Pucca house thereon, but as because of some mischievous deeds, petitioner-plaintiff removed the said Ganesh from its services. Ganesh surrendered his settlement to the defendant--R.I.A.D.A. and pressed on the defendant for ousting the plaintiff-petitioner from the suit premises and as such notices were sent on the plaintiff-petitioner. In the meantime, plaintiff also made application to the defendant for having settlement of the suit premises in its name. But, when the notices were served without giving any settlement or deciding either way on the settlement appellation of the petitioner-plaintiff, the plaintiff had no other alternative but to file Title Suit No. 49 of 1991 praying for a declaration that the petitioner is not an encroacher over the suit premises and that it cannot be evicted without due process of law by the defendant. Along with the plaint, prayer was made by a separate petition under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. for a direction/restraint order against the defendant not dispossess the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit forcefully. Plaintiff's prayer after hearing the defendant was allowed and a temporary injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit premises during the pendency of the suit. But, on appeal, the injunction order was set aside mainly on the ground that the defendant has no right over the suit premises at the time of the filing of the suit and as such he is not entitled to get any restraint order.

(3.) While this revision petition was filed before this Court, vide order dated 21.2.1992 the revision petition was admitted for hearing and notices were issued to the Opposite party and considering the nature and circumstances of the case, an interim order of stay was passed regarding operation of the impugned appellate order on vacating the injunction order restraining the defendant remained in force till today. In view of the above position and when nobody has appeared to contest in favour of R.I.A.D.A. in this civil revision and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the restraint order should continue for six months more within which the suit filed by the plaintiff should be disposed of by the Sub Judge at Ranchi, otherwise the whole suit filed by the plaintiff would be frustrated, if forceful possession is taken by the R.I.A.D.A. in the suit premises.