Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 507 (JHR)

Pramila Devi v. State of Jharkhand through

2011-06-15

JAYA ROY, PRAKASH TATIA

body2011
JUDGMENT: Heard the counsel for the parties on the point of maintainability of the L.P.A. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant tried to convince us that the order dated 10.5.2011 contains all the facets of the finality in view of the objections made by the learned Single Judge and particularly in view of the fact that the writ petition has already been admitted and the Interim order was passed on 22.3.2010 with respect to the eviction of the writ petitioner. The Interim order was vacated on 10.5.2011 and in view of the serious and grave consequences, the effect of the order is virtually deciding the rights of the parties as because of the vacation of the Interim order, the appellant-petitioner may be dispossessed from the premises. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court delivered in the case of Shah Babulal Khimji Vrs. Jayaben D. Kania & Anr., reported in A.I.R. 1981 SC 1786 and also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered in the case of H.D.Singh Vrs. Reserve Bank of India and Ors., reported in 1986 (1) SCC 132 , on merits of the case to justify his possession and right to remain in possession. 3. After considering the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered in the case of Shah Babulal Khimji Vrs. Jayaben D. Kania & Anr. (Supra) and also in the case of H.D.Singh Vrs. Reserve Bank of India and Ors. (Supra), we are of the view that the present order does not fall in the category of any final order. It is settled law that any finding or observation made while deciding the Interim application for grant of injunction, where injunction is granted or refused, the finding remains prima facie. Even if any Interim order indicates towards some finality, then also those findings remain the prima facie finding as while dealing with the Interlocutory application for grant of injunction, the Court can pass order only upon recording prima facie findings and cannot record any final finding. Even if any Interim order indicates towards some finality, then also those findings remain the prima facie finding as while dealing with the Interlocutory application for grant of injunction, the Court can pass order only upon recording prima facie findings and cannot record any final finding. Therefore, the counsel for the appellant apprehension that the findings recorded in the order dated 10.5.2011 may amount to final determination of any of the right of the appellant including about his right to remain in possession has no legal basis, and the petitioner-appellant if entitled to any relief on proving his case on merits, he can certainly get the relief, which has been refused to him in the Interim order. Therefore, so far the L.P.A is concerned, it is not maintainable, and therefore, we cannot go into the merits of the claim of the appellant-petitioner in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered in the case of Shah Babulal Khimji Vrs. Jayaben D. Kania & Anr. (Supra) and also in the case of H.D.Singh Vrs. Reserve Bank of India and Ors. (Supra). 4. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner submitted that since the writ petition has been admitted and posted for final hearing on 4th July, 2011, and since even this Bench on 20.5.2011 granted Interim Order in favour of the appellant, therefore, even while rejecting the L.P.A that Interim arrangement may be continued till 4th of July, 2011. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that this Court may not grant even this relief on Interim arrangement as this Court has already taken note that the L.P.A is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is a chance of crumbling down of the building, also this Interim order may not be passed. The learned counsel for the respondents also pointed out that there are inquiry reports, which clearly indicates that the building may crumbled down any time. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is a chance of crumbling down of the building, also this Interim order may not be passed. The learned counsel for the respondents also pointed out that there are inquiry reports, which clearly indicates that the building may crumbled down any time. 6. We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the respondents on this issue also, but we are of the considered opinion that till the matter is heard where a proceeding under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code was initiated in the year 2009 by the purchaser of the property and the Interim order was in favour of the appellant for such a long period till today, and that the building has not deteriorated further, if it was in bad condition, therefore, merely because this Court today found that the L.P.A is not maintainable, it cannot be presumed that the building may collapse, and there is no reasonable reason to prima facie held that there is a possibility of crumbling down of the building in few days. It is pertinent to mention here that the matter is before the learned Single Judge for final hearing as the learned Single Judge has himself posted the matter for final hearing on 04.07.2011, therefore, we deem it proper to direct to maintain the Status-quo with respect to the property till 4th July, 2011, and we request the learned Single Bench hearing the matter to hear and decide the writ petition. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the learned Bench may be requested to hear the matter as a first case on 04.07.2011, such request may be made before the Single Bench by showing the urgency in the matter by both the parties as there is an Interim order till 04.07.2011 only and there is apprehension by the respondents that the building may collapse.