NEK RAM Vs. B B BHUSHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE order dated 12th May 2000 learned Munsiff, Billawar while entertaining the suit of the respondents and directing issuance notice to the present petitioners who are in the array of defendants passed an interim injunctive order restraining them from interfering into possession of other side over the suit land subject to objections which were directed to be filed on 27.5.2000. Thereafter the proceeding is stated to have continued as such. On 24.2.2001 while the application for interim injunctive relief was posted for orders, the learned Munsiff while transmitting the case for hearing to Sub Divisional Magistrate Basholi recorded on dismissal order regarding interim injunctive petition. This order appears to have been challenged in this court under a Civil Revision No. 37/2001 on the ground that the learned Munsiff has wrongly transferred the suit to Sub Divisional Magistrate which was allowed vide order dated 25.11.2004 by setting aside the Munsiffs order regarding assignment of case to SDM. While doing so, this court returned a positive finding that the court of Munsiff below had jurisdiction to proceed in the matter. However, this order does not appear to have been served upon the concerned SDM with reasonable dispatch who vide order dated 8.2.2006 while observing that none of parties had been appearing before him in view of the long pendency of the matter dismissed the civil suit for want of prosecution. Around two years thereafter when the order of this court appears to have been brought to the notice of concerned SDM appears to have transmitted the file back to Munsiff where as per interim order dated 7th December 2007 notice for prosecution was issued to the counsel for parties and the matter posted for further proceedings on 16.1.2008. Before appointed date however, respondents appear to have filed an application for implementation of the temporary injunction order dated 12th May 2000 through police which by way of an endorsement which appears to have been forwarded by learned Munsiff to SHO Police Station Billawar for "implementing the order in its letter and spirit and report compliance that the order dated 12th May 2000 stands implemented on spot." It is this order which has been impugned in this revision petition.

(2.) GROUNDS pleaded are that after dismissal of interim injunction application, exparte order dated 12.5.2000 stood automatically vacated, earlier direction restraining the petitioners from interference passed on 12.5.2000 subject to objections of other side had automatically ceased to exist and as subject seeking its implementation through assistance of police was bad particularly because the matter with notice to parties was posted for 16.1.2008. During the threshold submissions, petitioners counsel while reiterating the contents of revision petition has also contended that in the first instance the matter had suffered a total dismissal at the hands of concerned SDM even after the order of this court dated 25.11.2004. In view of this it was doubtful as to whether learned Munsiff could have taken cognizance of the lis afresh etc.

(3.) ON consideration I find that the matter has suffered a series of unfortunate developments starting with transfer of the case by Munsiff to concerned SDM, quite thoughtlessly which not only resulted in the inordinate delay in disposal of the matter, but must also have subjected the parties to uncalled for agony. The concerned SDM dismissed the matter even after the order of restoration of the file back to Munsiff had been passed by this court with the positive finding of jurisdiction to decide it vest with the civil court and not SDM where after somehow file has surfaced in the court of concerned Munsiff who rightly directed issuance of notice to the parties before proceeding ahead in the matter. Before proceeding further it would be appropriate to notice that the SDMs order of dismissal regarding the suit would have to be deemed to be non est in view of clear finding of this court that the order of concerned Munsiff transferring the matter to him was bad where after automatically subsequent order of SDM vanish, away in thin air. Otherwise also the matter having been sent to him by way of reference, it could have not been dismissed for want of prosecution by the parties. However, as if all that was not enough the last shot has come by way of impugned order passed by Munsiff on 19.12.2007 whereunder he is directed to implement his order dated 12.5.2000 through concerned police which on the face of it appears to be not simply bad but also amounts to abuse of the process of court for the simple reason that with dismissal of temporary injunction application on 24.2.2002 why the main suit was sent to SDM the threshold injunctive direction passed therein on 12.5.2000 would not continue to exist and as such on 27.12.2007 when learned Munsiff passed impugned order, threshold direction of 12.5.2000 was not in force, but had extinguished. It hardly needs any overstretch of logic to say that for want of said direction being in force its implementation could not be sought muchless through assistance of the police. In view of what has proceeded hereinbefore I think issuance of notice to other side would be a share wastage of time because the impugned order with all the circumstances attending it is so patently bad that it does not admit of any further delay to extend its life.