Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1242 (RAJ)

Jai PrakashAnr v. Ratna Ram Ors

2013-07-10

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The matter is listed for admission, however, at the request of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 16.3.2011 passed by the District Judge, Merta (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Court') in an appeal filed by the respondents No. 1 to 3 against the order dated 8.5.2007 passed by the Civil judge (junior Division), Merta (hereinafter referred as the trial Court') on an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. filed by the petitioners. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents No. 1 to 3 and other defendants with the prayer that by way of permanent injunction, the defendants may be restraint from constructing a way through the land, description of which has been given in Paras No. 1 and 2 of the plaint. Along with the suit for permanent injunction. an, application for granting temporary injunction against the respondent - defendants was also preferred under Order 39 Rule I read with Section 151 C.P.C. 4. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties allowed the application for grant of temporary injunction and directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the land in question as per Moka Commissioner's report dated 26.3.2007. 5. Aggrieved by the order dated 8.5.2007, the respondents No. 1 to 3 preferred an appeal before the District judge, Merta and the learned District Judge, Merta accepted the said appeal vide impugned order dated 16.3.2011 and set aside the order dated 8.5.2007 passed by the trial Court while giving a finding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit preferred by the petitioners and it is the jurisdiction of Revenue Courts only to decide the dispute' regarding the way in the agriculture land. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that by way of the order dated 16.3.2011, the learned Appellate Court has literally gave a finding which may result in dismissal of suit filed by the petitioners for permanent injunction. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that by way of the order dated 16.3.2011, the learned Appellate Court has literally gave a finding which may result in dismissal of suit filed by the petitioners for permanent injunction. it is further contended that the learned trial Court after taking into consideration each and every aspect of the matter has passed a reasoned order on an application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioners and has rightly directed the parties to maintain the status quo as per the report of the Commissioner dated 26.3.2007 and there was no occasion for the learned Appellate Court to set aside the said order. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents Shri Ranjeet Joshi has supported the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court and has argued that in fact the petitioners obstructed the way of the respondents No. 1 to 3 to enter into their fields and the learned trial Court without looking into the said aspect of the matter has granted temporary injunction against the respondents No. I to 3 and, therefore, the Appellate Court has rightly set aside the order of the learned trial Court dated 8.5.2007. It is further contended on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 3 that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out and, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. This Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material placed on record by the petitioners. 9. The learned Appellate Court, without taking into consideration the factual aspect of the matter, has straight way gave a finding that since the dispute between the parties is in relation of right of way into agricultural fields, the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the said dispute and only the Revenue Court is having jurisdiction to decide the said dispute and after observing this, the learned Appellate Court has allowed the appeal and has quashed the order passed by the learned trial Court. 10. This Court is of the opinion that whether the civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit filed by the petitioners is a question, which is to be decided by the learned trial Court after framing proper issues in this respect. 10. This Court is of the opinion that whether the civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit filed by the petitioners is a question, which is to be decided by the learned trial Court after framing proper issues in this respect. It is not out of place to mention here that the respondents No. 1 to 3 have not raised any objection regarding the maintainability of suit by filing a proper application under the provisions of Civil Procedure Code and looking to this fact also, it was not proper on the part of the Appellate Court to straight way gave a finding that the suit filed by the petitioners is not triable by the civil Court. 11. In view of the above observations, the order passed by the Appellate Court is not sustainable in the eye of law and, therefore, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.3.2011 is hereby set aside. 12. This Court while issuing notice of the writ petition on 3.5.2011 has directed the parties to maintain status quo in relation to the disputed way and in pursuance of that the parties are maintaining the status quo. Looking to this fact, the stay order passed by this Court on 3.5.2011 is made absolute and the trial Court is requested to decide the case expeditiously.Petition Allowed. *******