Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2596 (ALL)

Rajeev Ranjan v. State of U. P.

2015-08-25

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.A. Lari appearing on behalf of the respondent no.3. 2. The petitioner has filed an appeal against the order of the trial court rejecting his application for temporary injunction in Original Suit No.588 of 2009. The appeal has been registered as misc. civil appeal no.82 of 2011. Therein, an interim protection has been provided to the petitioner and which is being extended from time to time. The petitioner filed an application 98-Ga for summoning certain records from the revenue authorities. The application was opposed by the respondents by making an endorsement to the effect that the application has been filed with the intent to delay the disposal of the appeal. However, it seems that on 8.4.2015, the appellate court allowed the application by following order : - "Prathnapatra 98-Ga Swikrit. Patrawali Talab ho." 3. Thereafter, the petitioner seems to have filed an application for permission to deposit the cost in requisitioning the record from the revenue court. At this stage again the respondents opposed the application. The lower appellate court after considering the entire matter held that earlier there was no specific order for summoning the record and it seems that in routine manner, the application was allowed. It has further been noted that the appeal is pending since last four years and there is no justification for calling for the record from the revenue court. The appellate court further observed that the record of the original suit is already before it and which alone is required for deciding the appeal. Accordingly, it rejected the application filed by the petitioner for depositing the cost to requisition the record and to that extent, the application 98-Ga was also rejected. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 4. It is not in dispute that the suit is pending before the trial court wherein, it is always open to the petitioner to make request for requisitioning the record of the revenue court, if it is required for adjudication of the controversy involved in the suit. The appeal in question is filed against the order passed on the application for temporary injunction and the petitioner has been enjoying the interim protection since the year 2011. The appeal in question is filed against the order passed on the application for temporary injunction and the petitioner has been enjoying the interim protection since the year 2011. The trial court after considering these factors has rejected the request for summoning the record. 5. In the circumstances aforesaid, this court does not find any jurisdictional error or any failure of justice which may require intervention by this Court in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, at this stage. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.