Gajanand Sharma v. Government Secondary Sanskrit School, through Principal, Jaipur
2018-09-20
ALOK SHARMA
body2018
DigiLaw.ai
ORDER : 1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff (hereinafter plaintiff) and perused the impugned order dated 07.04.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur District, Jaipur in a Civil Misc. Appeal No. 06/2018 upholding the interlocutory order dated 10.02.2017 passed by the Additional Civil Judge No. 2 Jaipur District, Jaipur dismissing the petitioner’s application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC in a suit for declaration and injunction. 2. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. 3. The courts below have come to a finding of fact that the petitioner had not made out a prima-facie case of his title to the suit land as he had not produced any document of ownership. And conversely a patta had been issued to the respondent-defendant (hereinafter defendant) the Government Secondary Sanskrit School and the land in dispute was being used as a right of way for children to go to the school. In the circumstances, aside of the prima-facie case not being with the plaintiff, he also did not have the balance of convenience on his favour. Nor irreparable loss was being occasioned to the plaintiff if the land in dispute were to be continued as the way for the children going to school. 4. I am of the considered view that the order passed by the courts below are in the far exercise of their discretion and well-founded on the objective consideration of the material facts before them. They do not suffer any perversity, capriciousness or error of jurisdiction to warrant interference by this court in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the constitution of India. 5. The trial court is however directed to dispose of the suit itself within a period of 24 months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. To effectuate this order, the trial court should adhere the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s. Shiv Cotex vs. Tirgun Auto Plast (P) Ltd. and Others, (2011) 9 SCC 678 , as also the proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 CPC. The petition stands accordingly dismissed.