Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 636 (RAJ)

Vinod Rohella v. State of Rajasthan

2012-03-13

ARUN MISHRA, NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN

body2012
Hon'ble MISHRA, CJ.—Heard on question of admission. 2. The appellant has filed a suit before Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Ramgarh District Alwar (hereinafter referred to as 'the SDO'), which is pending consideration. An application was also filed for interim injunction, restraining the defendants from raising construction over the land bearing Survey Nos. 199, 200, 201, 202 and 203 situated at Village Roondh Dhuninath Tehsil Ramgarh, District Alwar and further not to dispossess the appellant and not to raise construction of a wall over the land near the drainage marked as 'ABC', which is situated in midst of Survey Nos. 199 and 200. 3. The SDO vide order dated 16.09.2011 has granted injunction to the effect that the defendants are restrained from raising construction over the land bearing Survey No. 199 belonging to the appellant and in case the defendants/Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are raising the construction in the land, which has been allotted to them, they have right to raise construction and in case, there is any dispute with respect to the boundaries of the land in dispute, then demarcation of the land be done by the concerned official of the Tehsil. 4. The appellant has also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC for breach of order passed by the SDO and the same is stated to be pending consideration. As the application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC has not been decided and order passed by the SDO is being violated by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, the appellant approached the Single Bench by way of filing writ application, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 28.02.2012 on the ground that the suit is pending before the SDO and an application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC is also pending consideration before the SDO, therefore, it is for the concerned Court to pass appropriate orders. Aggrieved by the said order, present intra Court appeal has been preferred. 5. Mr. S.R. Surana, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that since the order passed by the SDO is being violated by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and is not being obeyed, it was incumbent upon the concerned Court, where the suit is pending, to ensure the compliance of the same. 5. Mr. S.R. Surana, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that since the order passed by the SDO is being violated by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and is not being obeyed, it was incumbent upon the concerned Court, where the suit is pending, to ensure the compliance of the same. Application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC has also been filed, but the same has not been decided, hence, writ jurisdiction ought to have been exercised by the Single Bench, so as to enforce the order passed by the SDO in the pending suit. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the opinion that as the suit is still pending before the SDO; application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC has also been filed, there appears to be some dispute with respect to the boundaries of the land in dispute. However, it is for the concerned Court to ensure the compliance of its order. In these circumstances, we expect from the SDO to take into consideration the application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC filed by the appellant for compliance of order passed by it on 16.09.2011 and to pass appropriate order as early as possible, as the orders passed by the Court have to be enforced and cannot be permitted to become futile. 7. In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to interfere in the appeal. The appeal is disposed of. Stay application is also disposed of.