ANITA DEVI Vs. SOMRI KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears that no affidavit has been filed in terms of the order dated 20.09.2019. The original records relating to the order dated 12.10.2017 has been produced before this Court. This Court has perused the records. This Court queried from the officer, namely, Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Garhwa, who is present in the Court, as to what was the occasion to pass the order dated 12.10.2017, whereby, he set aside the status quo granted by this Court. He has submitted at Bar that it was passed by mistake. Although he tried to explain that it was not with regard to the order of the High Court, but it was with respect to his own earlier order dated 29.07.2017. This Court tried to accept the submission of the officer concerned and repeatedly went through the order dated 12.10.2017, but plea is not reflected from the order dated 12.10.2017. However, he has already accepted at Bar that the order dated 12.10.2017 was passed by way of mistake. For better appreciation of the matter, order dated 20.09.2019 is quoted herein below:

(2.) This I.A. was taken by this Court on 19.07.2018 and following order was passed:- Mr. S.L. Burnwal, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3B-Umesh Paswan, submits that Umesh Paswan is also known as Umesh Ram. Learned senior counsel further submits that the land in dispute is the ancestral property of the said respondent/petitioner who is in physical as well as legal possession of the suit land and vide order dated 8.12.2008, this Court has been pleased to direct the parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession till disposal of the appeal. Learned senior counsel further submits that the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Garhwa vide his order dated 12.10.2017 stated in his Letter No. 379, addressed to the Officer In-charge, Kandi Police Station, that the order of status quo, granted by this Court, is set aside and by virtue of the said order passed by the Learned senior counsel further submits that the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Garhwa vide his order dated 12.10.2017 stated in his Letter No. 379, addressed to the Officer In-charge, Kandi Police Station, that the order of status quo, granted by this Court, is set aside and by virtue of the said order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Garhwa, the appellants tried to dispossess the respondent no. 3B from the ancestral and legal possession of the suit land. Learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 3B seeks permission of this Court to implead the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Garhwa and the Superintendent of Police, Garhwa as respondents in this I.A. Permission is accorded. The respondent no. 3B is directed to incorporate the name of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Garhwa and the Superintendent of Police, Garhwa as opposite parties in this I.A. The respondent no. 3B undertakes to serve notice upon the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Garhwa and the Superintendent of Police, Garhwa through learned Advocate General. It is made clear that the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Garhwa has no power to set aside the order of status quo passed by this Court on 8.12.2008 in this appeal and it is reiterated that the said order passed by this Court directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession till disposal of the appeal continues. List this I.A. after four weeks.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Garhwa whereby the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has tried to explain the circumstances which compelled him to pass the order dated 12.10.2017 whereby he has set aside the order of this Court.