Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 165 (ALL)

Maya Devi v. Mahant Damodar Das

2020-01-14

SANGEETA CHANDRA

body2020
JUDGMENT : Sangeeta Chandra, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant. 2. This matter has come up on C.M. Application No. 81274 of 2013 (Modification Application) moved on behalf of respondent No. 1/1. This application was filed on 8.9.2013 after sending a copy of the application through Speed Post. A receipt issued by the Postal Department dated 9.9.2013 has been affixed on the affidavit filed in support of the Application for Modification/Clarification. 3. Sri P.V. Chaudhary, who was the erstwhile Counsel of the writ petitioners has failed to appear, as his Vakalatnama stood discharged on dismissal of writ petition on 11.4.2012. 4. From a perusal of the order dated 11.4.2012, modification of which has been prayed for, in this application, it is apparent that this Court had observed that the writ petition was not maintainable as it had been filed against the orders passed in mutation proceedings. This Court had also observed that the petitioners were already enjoying an injunction order granted by the Munsif, Faizabad against which, an appeal was filed by the respondent, which was dismissed and the second appeal filed thereafter was also dismissed by this Court on 31.8.1983. This Court observed in its order that the injunction suit having already been decreed in favour of the petitioners and the Decree having attained finality, the parties to the suit are bound to follow the injunction granted by the Munsif, Faizabad. So far as the question of title was concerned, the writ petitioners were given the liberty to file a Regular Suit under section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act for declaration of title. It was further observed that if such a suit is filed, the petitioners will also be entitled for the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act. This Court, however, in the operative portion of the judgment and order dated 11.4.2012 made the following observations: "Since it has been argued that there is every possibility that either of the parties may sell out the land by the time the suit is filed. This Court therefore passes an order to the effect that till the filing of the suit and disposal of the injunction application by the SDM concerned, either of the parties will not sell the land in dispute. Subject to above observation, writ petition is dismissed. Petitioners may file civil or revenue suit in accordance with law." 5. This Court therefore passes an order to the effect that till the filing of the suit and disposal of the injunction application by the SDM concerned, either of the parties will not sell the land in dispute. Subject to above observation, writ petition is dismissed. Petitioners may file civil or revenue suit in accordance with law." 5. It is the case of the applicant as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application that since no time limit has been given in the order dated 11.4.2012 for the petitioners to file civil or revenue suit as observed by this Court, the writ petitioners have not filed any suit and are enjoying the interim order granted by this Court while dismissing the petition. 6. Since this application was filed in 2013, this Court made a specific query from Sri M.E. Khan, who appears for the applicant as to whether the suit has not been filed till date, the learned Counsel for the applicant, on the basis of instructions, slates that till date, no suit has been filed, either before the revenue Court or before the civil Court by the petitioners. It has also been submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, AIR 1952 SC 12 has observed that when a writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable or for any other reason, leaving it open to the parties to approach the civil Court, no interim order should be passed in favour of the writ petitioner. 7. This application is disposed of, by clarifying the order dated 11.4.2012 to the extent that the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act, which had been given by this Court in its order dated 11.4.2012, would operate only for a period of three years from the date of the said order and not thereafter. 8. Since it has been stated before this Court that no civil or revenue suit has been filed by the petitioners till date, the interim order, directing parties not to sell the land in dispute till such suit is filed and injunction application is considered by the Court concerned, shall also not enure to the benefit of the petitioners.