Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 75 (RAJ)

Ramchandra v. Phoola Ram

2016-01-12

ARUN BHANSALI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against Orders dated 20.11.2014 passed by the Civil Judge (JD) Sardarsahar, District-Churu, Rajasthan and Order dated 6.1.2015 passed by Additional District Judge, Churu Camp Sardarsahar whereby the application filed by respondents under Order 7, Rule 10 C.P.C. has been accepted and the Trial Court directed for return of the plaint to the filed before the National Green Tribunal and the appeal filed by the petitioner under Order 43 C.P.C. has been dismissed. 2. The learned Counsel for the respondents submits that in view of the judgment of the National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi in Dr. Arvind Gupta v. Union of India & Ors., (Original Application No. 61/2012, decided on 10.12.2015), wherein the Tribunal has held that emission of electromagnetic waves from the towers constructed by the respective respondents does not fall within the ambit, scope and jurisdiction vested in this Tribunal under the provisions of the NGT Act with reference Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the respondent now does not want to press his application under Order 7, Rule 10 C.P.C. 3. In view of the above submissions and the order of the National Green Tribunal, the application filed by the respondents under Order 7, Rule 10 C.P.C. dismissed as withdrawn. 4. Consequently, the Orders dated 20.11.2014 passed by the Trial Court and 6.1.2015 passed by the Appellate Court are also set aside. The suit filed by the petitioner being Civil Original Suit No. 38/14 along with application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. are restored back before the Trial Court. 5. During the pendency of this Writ Petition, respondents were directed to maintain status quo, the said order would continue till the application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. is decided by the Trial Court. It is made clear that the passing of the interim order by this Court would not amount to expression of any opinion on the merits of the dispute before the Trial Court and the Trial Court would decide the application uninfluenced by the interim order passed by this Court. 6. It is made clear that the passing of the interim order by this Court would not amount to expression of any opinion on the merits of the dispute before the Trial Court and the Trial Court would decide the application uninfluenced by the interim order passed by this Court. 6. It would be open for the Respondent No. 2 to remove the structure existing at the site irrespective of passing of the status quo order, in case it decides to abandon its plan to set up the tower at the site in dispute. 7. The Trial Court is directed to decide the application seeking temporary injunction as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the said Court. With the above directions and observations, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of.