Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/2971/2013 of Smt. Pushpa Devi AND ANOTHER Vs Sri Lakhan Singh on 28 December 2013
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2971 of 2013 (M/S) Smt. Pushpa Devi and another …..Petitioners. Versus Sri Lakhan Singh …..Respondent Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. Learned Trial Court, vide order dated
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHANDAT NAINITALWrit Petition No. 2971 of 2013 (M/S)
Smt. Pushpa Devi and another
…..Petitioners.
Versus
Sri Lakhan Singh Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Hon’ble Alok Singh, J.
…..Respondent
Learned Trial Court, vide order dated 18.09.2012, passed in O.S. No. 432 of 2012, was pleased to decide the application moved under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. directing the defendant respondent herein not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs over the land khasra No.285 M, measuring 0.405 hectare, village Gular Goji, Tehsil Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar by raising illegal construction or otherwise during the pendency of the suit. Local Commissioner was appointed who has submitted his report about the status of the property. Plaintiff petitioners herein thereafter moved an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the C.P.C. stating that defendant in violation of injunction order dated 18.09.2012 destroyed crop standing on the property and have demolished the temporary structure and have taken away some goods. Thereafter, one application under Section 151 C.P.C. was also moved before the Trial Court in original suit seeking direction to the Inspector In-charge, Kotwali Jaspur to restrain the defendant not to make interference in the possession of the plaintiffs over the property in question as directed by the Trial Court vide order dated 18.09.2012. Application moved under Section 151 C.P.C. was dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated 19.10.2013
and civil revision also came to be dismissed vide order 27.11.2013, thereafter, plaintiff petitioners herein have invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
In the humble opinion of this Court, if injunction order is violated, Order 39 Rule 2-A of the C.P.C. can be pressed in service and learned Trial Court may issue appropriate direction to the Police under Section 151 C.P.C. to ensure the compliance of interim injunction order.
In the present case, it seems that learned Trial Court instead of deciding the application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the C.P.C., surprisingly directed that same shall be decided alongwith the suit. The course adopted by the learned Trial Court seems to be totally uncalled for. Learned Trial Court should decide the application moved under Order 39 Rule 2-A C.P.C. at its own merit in accordance with law and ordinarily shall not postpone the disposal till final decision of the suit.
Therefore, present petition stands disposed of with the direction that application moved by the plaintiff petitioners herein under Order 39 Rule 2-A of C.P.C. shall be decided at its own merit in accordance with law preferably within four months from the date certified copy of this order is placed before the Trial Court without being prejudice from any finding or observations made while rejecting the application under Section 151 C.P.C.
(Alok Singh, J.)
Dated 28[th] December, 2013 Shiv