Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 683 (MP)

Durga Prasad v. Apurwa Mushif

2014-06-19

U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2014
Judgment: U.C. Maheshwari, J. 1. On behalf of the petitioners/plaintiffs this petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 16.01.2014 passed by First Additional District Judge, Waidhan, District Singrauli in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 28/13, whereby allowing the appeal of the respondent set aside the order dated 10.04.2013 passed by Civil Judge Class-1, Deosar, District Singrauli in Civil Suit No. 28A/2009, whereby allowing his application of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. issued an interim injunction in favour of the petitioners, restraining the respondent No. 1 to install the alleged electricity poles on their field. 2. Initially, after taking me through the petition as well as the papers placed on record along with the orders of the courts below, the petitioners' counsel has argued the case on admission and allowing this petition, but in view of observations made by appellate court in para 9 of the impugned order Annexure P-1, on making certain query from the petitioners' counsel whether subject to depositing such directed amount Rs. 10,000/- per electricity pole including the earlier assessed/paid amount Rs. 1000/- per electricity pole, the petitioners are satisfied at the interlocutory stage of the suit, on which petitioners' counsel submit that at the interlocutory stage, petitioners are ready to accept the aforesaid sum at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per pole but subject to final judgment and decree of the suit and prayed to dispose of the petition with appropriate direction to the authorities of the respondent No. 1 to deposit the remaining sum at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per pole with the trial Court within some fixed period with a direction to disburse such sum to the petitioners according to their share with a further prayer for appropriate direction to the trial Court to expedite the trial of the suit and decide the same on some early date within some time bound schedule. 3. On the other hand, counsel of the respondent No. 1 submits that although he is ready to deposit the sum as directed by the appellate Court in para 9 of the impugned order, but the same shall be deposited by the respondent no. 1 subject to final judgment and decree of the trial court and to deposit such sum some reasonable period be given to the respondent no. 1 subject to final judgment and decree of the trial court and to deposit such sum some reasonable period be given to the respondent no. 1 with a further prayer that such amount be disbursed to the petitioners after obtaining some undertaking from them that subject to final judgment and decree of the trial Court, on arising the occasion, the same could be deposited by them along with the interest at the banking rate. He did not have any objection for giving appropriate direction to the trial Court to conclude the trial of the case on some early date. 4. Keeping in view the aforesaid submissions, without expressing any opinion on the question raised in this petition, considering the prayer of the counsels as stated above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the authorities of the respondent no. 1 to deposit the remaining sum in accordance with the direction of the appellate court given in para 9 of the impugned order Annexure P-1 with the trial Court within 90 days from today. It is made clear that such deposit shall be deemed to be subjected to final judgment and decree of the trial Court. The trial Court is further directed that on depositing the aforesaid sum within the prescribed period, the same be given to the concerning petitioners/plaintiffs according to their ratio after submitting the undertaking by them that subject to final judgment and decree in the suit, on arising the occasion, they will deposit the same on direction of the court along with the sum of the interest at the banking rate. It is also made clear that the trial Court shall decide the suit on its own merits on appreciation of the evidence without influencing from any observations or findings given by the courts below in the order impugned or by this Court in the present order. Respondent no. 1 is further directed that at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- if the amount has also not been paid earlier to the petitioners or any of them then such sum shall also be deposited within the aforesaid period. 5. However, it is observed that if the aforesaid direction to deposit the sum is not complied by the respondent no. 1 is further directed that at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- if the amount has also not been paid earlier to the petitioners or any of them then such sum shall also be deposited within the aforesaid period. 5. However, it is observed that if the aforesaid direction to deposit the sum is not complied by the respondent no. 1 within the prescribed period, then in such premises, the respondent No. 1 did not have any authority to defend the aforesaid suit further, as such the deposit of the sum in compliance of the order, shall be the condition precedent to defend the suit. 6. The writ petition is disposed of on the conditions as mentioned above. No order as to costs. 7. C.C. as per rules.