Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 452 (UTT)

Leela Singh v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-11-18

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA

body2020
JUDGMENT Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the present three writ petitions, the same are being decided together by this common judgement. 2. The petitioners in the above three writ petitions are the plaintiffs in the respective Suits i.e. in WPMS No. 246 of 2020, Leela Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, its Suit No. 153 of 2017, Leela Singh Vs. Surendra and others; in WPMS No. 1008 of 2020, Kishan Lal and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, its Suit No. 158 of 2017, Kishan Lal and others Vs. Surendra and others; and in WPMS No. 1010 of 2020, Chandrapal and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, its Suit No. 159 of 2017, Chandrapal and others Vs. Surendra and others. 3. In all the above three writ petitions, the petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in the aforesaid respective suits, referred above, had filed their respective applications before the learned trial Court, invoking the provisions contained under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC, for the grant of temporary injunction, which was rejected by the learned trial Court by respective orders passed on 22.07.2019, in their respective suits, as detailed above. 4. Being aggrieved against the rejection of the temporary injunction applications, the plaintiffs of the respective suits, had filed a Miscellaneous Civil Appeals by invoking the provisions contained under Section 43(1)(r) of the CPC, being Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2019, Leela Singh Vs. Surendra and others; Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2019, Kishan Lal and others Vs. Surendra and others, and Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2019, Chandrapal and others Vs. Surendra and others, respectively. 5. The said Miscellaneous Civil Appeals, preferred by the plaintiffs/petitioners, herein were also dismissed by the Court of Second Additional District Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, and by the impugned judgement/order dated 04.01.2020, which has been passed respectively in the aforesaid three Miscellaneous Civil Appeals, which are under challenge in the present writ petitions. 6. When the WPMS No. 246 of 2020, was preferred by the petitioner before this Court on 23.01.2020, no interim order was passed in the said writ petition; counter affidavit was invited from the respondents and thereafter counter affidavit was filed by the respondents, to which the rejoinder affidavit is yet to be filed by the petitioner. 6. When the WPMS No. 246 of 2020, was preferred by the petitioner before this Court on 23.01.2020, no interim order was passed in the said writ petition; counter affidavit was invited from the respondents and thereafter counter affidavit was filed by the respondents, to which the rejoinder affidavit is yet to be filed by the petitioner. But, however, in other connected writ petitions being WPMS No. 1008 of 2020 and WPMS No. 1010 of 2020, the coordinate Bench of this Court, by an interim order dated 07.07.2020, has directed the parties to maintain status quo in relation to the respective property, which was the subject matter of the suits, pending consideration before the learned trial Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 7. The Writ Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has got a limited scope of interference in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, when an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 has been concurrently rejected by both the courts below as the writ Courts cannot sit as a Court of Appeal in the light of the judgment of the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court reported in , Ganga Saran Vs. Civil Judge, Hapur, Ghaziabad and others, (1991) AIR Allahabad 114. 8. In view of the said proposition and considering the fact that the coordinate Bench of this Court has already granted a status quo order on 07.07.2020, which is still in operation, this Court is of the view that in the wider interest of the parties to the litigation and particularly considering the fact that in a pending litigation, it would be in the interest that the status of the property may not be disturbed or altered during the pendency of the suit itself, I dispose of these writ petitions directing that the status quo, qua the property in question, pertaining to its title and possession would be continued to be maintained, as directed by the coordinate Bench of this Court by its interim order dated 07.07.2020, but, however, looking to the interests of the respondents/defendants, it is hereby directed that the learned Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar; would appropriately consider and decide the respective suits itself, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than nine months from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgement. 9. 9. Subject to the aforesaid direction, the writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly. 10. All pending applications are disposed of accordingly. 11. Let a copy of this order be kept in the order sheet of the respective writ petitions.