Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1009 (PNJ)

Swaran Kaur v. Gurdip Singh

2003-07-24

M.M.KUMAR

body2003
ORDER M.M. Kumar, J. - This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of a direction to the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jalandhar to decide the application for passing of ad-interim order filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity the Code) in Civil Suit No. 265 of 2002 by the plaintiff-petitioner without any further delay. A further prayer has been made that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 be restrained from interfering in the peaceful use of passage as mentioned in the heading of the plaint. 2. Plaintiff-petitioner has filed Civil Suit No. 265 of 2002 on 5.10.2002 seeking declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that Mutation No. 464 dated 7.6.1986 on the basis of the partition agreement dated 6.1.1986 is null and void and not binding on the parties. Along with the suit an application was filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code for issuance of interim directions. On 8.10.2002, notice of the suit as well as the application was issued for 29.10.2002. On 28.10.2002 summons were received back unserved and fresh notice was issued for 22.11.2002. Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 were served but service on other respondents remained incomplete. Notices were also issued for 3.1.2003 and 6.2.2003. On 6.2.2003, the case was adjourned to 16.10.2003. Thereafter an application under Section 151 of the Code for early hearing of the case was filed in which notice was issued for 5.3.2003 and then it was adjourned to 14.3.2003 and 23.4.2003. It has not been clarified as to what has happened to the application filed under Section 151 of the Code which was posted for hearing on 23.4.2003. 3. I have heard Shri G.K. Chawla learned counsel who has submitted that a direction be issued to the Civil Judge to dispose of the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner within specified time. He has also submitted that interim order in the meanwhile be issued by this Court restraining respondent Nos. 1 to 4 from interfering in the peaceful use of the passage as mentioned in the head note of the plaint. 4. After hearing the learned counsel and perusing the averments made in the petition, I am of the considered view that no case is made out for issuing any directions to the Civil Judge. 1 to 4 from interfering in the peaceful use of the passage as mentioned in the head note of the plaint. 4. After hearing the learned counsel and perusing the averments made in the petition, I am of the considered view that no case is made out for issuing any directions to the Civil Judge. The learned counsel has failed to point out the next date fixed in the application filed under Section 151 of the Code. Moreover, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution are to be exercised sparingly and in cases where grave injustice is likely to result. In support of this proposition the judgments in the case of Ouseph Mathai v. M. Abdul Khadir, (2002) 1 SCC 319 and Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani v. Partap Singh, JT 1995(7) SC 400 could be cited with advantage. It has not been even pointed out as to what would be the grave injustice caused to the plaintiff-petitioner. The Civil Judge is already seized of the matter and it is expected that the matter would be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. Therefore, this petition is without any merit and is thus liable to be dismissed. For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.