AALAM Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, BHARATPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs challenging the order dated 22.2.13 passed by the Addl. District Judge NO. 1, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 6/13, whereby the appellant court has set aside the order dated 11.1.13 passed by the Civil Judge (JD), Bhartpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Misc. Application No. 11/13.

(2.) AS per the case of the petitioners before the trial court, they were shifted to new fish market by the respondent No.1 pursuant to the order passed in execution proceedings in respect of the Case No. 6/09, and now the respondent No.1-defendant had threatened to dispossess them from the New Fish Market also. The petitioners, therefore, had filed the suit and the application before the trial court seeking temporary injunction. The trial court vide the order dated 11.1.13 partly allowed the said application, directing the respondent NO.1-defendant not to dispossess the petitioners-plaintiffs without following the due process of law. Being aggrieved by the said order the respondent No.1 had preferred an appeal being No.6/13 before the appellate court, which has been allowed vide the impugned order dated 22.2.13. The present petitioners being aggrieved by the said order passed by the appellate court has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution, by way of present petition.

(3.) THE court does not find any substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel Mr. Goyal. As transpiring from the impugned order passed by the appellate court there was nothing on record to suggest even prima facie that the petitioners except the petitioner No.2 Nasir was in possession of the shop in the old fish market, which would entitle them to the allotment of the shops in the new fish market. As observed by the appellate court, the petitioners-plaintiffs-appellants had occupied the shops in the new fish market, without there being any allotment of shops being made by the respondent No.1 in their favour. The appellate court has also observed that the petitioners-appellants had filed to prove any prima facie case in their favour and the balance of convenience was also in favour of the respondent No.1. The learned counsel Mr. Goyal has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the appellate court and, therefore, the court does not find any substance in the present petition. However, from the notice Annex.A annexed to the present petition it appears that the petitioner No.2 Nasir S/o Jaheer Khan was issued the notice by the respondent No.1 to shift from the old fish market to the new fish market and, therefore, he could not be asked to vacate the shop if allotted in the new fish market, without following the due process of law.