Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1994 DIGILAW 241 (MP)

Bhagirath v. Chhaganlal

1994-03-26

A.R.TIWARI

body1994
JUDGMENT The petitioners in M.P. No. 1386/92 are defendants in Civil Suit No. 27-A/91, pending in the Court of Civil Judge Thandla Camp Petlawad. That suit is instituted by the respondent/plaintiff and contains the reliefs of declaration of title and perpetual injunction. In that suit, the respondent applied for orders for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC. On hearing the petitioners, the trial Court allowed the application and granted order of temporary injunction on 19.8.91 (Annexure A) forbidding the petitioners from interfering with the possession of the respondent, on suit-property. Aggrieved by the order granting temporary injunction, the petitioners preferred Misc. Appeal No. 0/91 (Annexure B) before the Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Jhabua alongwith the application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act. Appellate Court passed the order of status quo and posted the application for recording of the evidence. Eventually, on 6.4.92, the appeal was dismissed as barred by time on the conclusion that no sufficient cause was made out to condone the delay. The order is Annexure D. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners have presented writ petition No. 1386/92. The petitioner No. 1 also filed a Civil Suit No. 31-A/91 in the same Court against the respondent concerning the same property. In that suit, the petitioner No. 1 applied for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC. That application was rejected on 19.8.91. Against that order, the petitioner No. 1 filed Misc. Appeal No. 0/91 before the Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Jhabua. That appeal also accompanied the application under S. S of the Limitation Act. The appellate Court granted the order of status quo and posted the application for recording or the evidence. Finally, on 6.4.92, (Annexure E) the appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the conclusion that no sufficient cause was made out to condone the delay. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner No. 1 has filed separate writ petition M.P. No. 801/92. Both these petitions are riled under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court on 7.5.92 passed the order of maintenance of status quo in terms of the order passed by the appellate Court in M.P. No. 801/92. This is how the order of status quo is continued. This order is not prejudicial to the parties. Both these petitions are riled under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court on 7.5.92 passed the order of maintenance of status quo in terms of the order passed by the appellate Court in M.P. No. 801/92. This is how the order of status quo is continued. This order is not prejudicial to the parties. Shri Gupta submitted that appellate Court has committed the error of law and that in refusing to condone delay in both the appeals the Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law. He, therefore, prayed for setting aside the order of the appellate Court in both the petitions. As held in AIR 1984 SC 38 ; the supervisory jurisdiction is limited only to seeing that the Court below functions within limits of its authority. I have read both the orders. The conclusion is based on appreciation of evidential material. The counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any jurisdictional error. I, therefore, should say monosyllabic 'no' to the prayer as contained in both petitions. More appropriate order would be the direction to the trial Court to expedite conclusion of both the suits. In the result, I dismiss the writ petitions. Even while doing so, I direct trial Judge (Civil Judge, Class-II Thandla Camp at Patlawad) to expedite the trial of both civil suit (27A/91 and 31-A/91) and decide the same by 31.12.94. In the interests of justice, it is also directed that the order of status quo as passed by the lower appellate Court and reiterated by this Court on 7.5.92 in M.P. No. 801/92 in relation to the suit-property shall continue to be inforce, till 31.12.94. or till disposal of the aforesaid civil suits whichever event may be earlier in point of time. Both these petitions are, thus, dismissed with directions as above but without any order as to costs. Security amount shall be refunded to the petitioner after due verification.