Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 356 (JK)

Guru Dutt v. Raj Kumar

2021-07-27

PUNEET GUPTA

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner herein preferred Civil Suit against the respondents which is being tried by the court of learned 2nd Additional Munsiff, Jammu. In an application filed for interim relief the learned trial court passed interim directions in favour of the petitioner herein vide order dated 09.05.2014, whereby the parties to the suit are directed to maintain the status quo on spot with respect to the suit lands till next date of hearing. It appears from the record available that an application came to be filed on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff herein seeking implementation of order dated 09.05.2014 and the trial court vide order dated 30.08.2019 passed the following order in the case. “It is therefore directed to I/C P/P Pouni Chak, Jammu to implement the Order dated 09.05.2014 passed in above aforementioned suit in letter and spirit. It is a dispute in the case with respect to identification of suit land and for demarcation of suit land a Commissioner (Tehsildar Phallian Mandal) has been appointed as the Commissioner may take some time to file report. I/C P/P Pouni Chak Jammu is therefore directed to get identification of suit land from the concerned Revenue officials before implementation of order dated 09.05.2014 as the order cannot be implemented in letter and spirit before the demarcation of suit land. Office is directed to serve a copy of interim order dated 09.05.2014 upon I/C P/P Pouni Chak, Jammu. Application is accordingly, disposed of and shall form part of the main file.” 2. Another application came to be filed for implementation of the aforesaid order dated 09.05.2014 and the court again passed order dated 08.01.2020, the relevant extract of which reads as under:- “It is therefore directed to SSP, Jammu to implement the Order dated 09.05.2014 passed in above aforementioned suit in letter and spirit. It is a dispute in the case with respect to identification of suit land and for demarcation of suit land a Commissioner (Tehsildar Phillian Mandal, Jammu) has been appointed as the Commissioner may take some time to file report. SSP Jammu is therefore directed to get identification of suit land from the concerned Revenue officials before implementation of order dated 09.05.2014 as the order cannot be implemented in letter and spirit before the demarcation of suit land. Office is directed to serve a copy of plaint and copy of interim order dated 09.05.2014 upon SSP, Jammu. SSP Jammu is therefore directed to get identification of suit land from the concerned Revenue officials before implementation of order dated 09.05.2014 as the order cannot be implemented in letter and spirit before the demarcation of suit land. Office is directed to serve a copy of plaint and copy of interim order dated 09.05.2014 upon SSP, Jammu. Application is accordingly, disposed of and shall form part of the main file.” 3. The petitioner herein is aggrieved of the orders passed by the trial court vide dated 30.08.2019 and 08.01.2020 on the ground that the orders impugned are perverse and illegal and even contrary to the interim order dated 09.05.2014 passed by the trial court. By virtue of impugned orders the court has kept its own interim order dated 09.05.2014 in abeyance as it has directed identification of the suit land from the concerned Revenue Officer before order dated 09.05.2014 is implemented. The trial court should have directed the implementation of order dated 09.05.2014 instead of observing that the said order could not be implemented without demarcation of the suit land. 4. The respondents stand served and are represented through their counsel. The precise submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner herein is that the trial court was bound to implement its own order dated 09.05.2014 passed as a measure of interim relief in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs in the suit. By directing the revenue agency to demarcate the suit property the trial court could not escape from its responsibility of implementing its own interim order passed on 09.05.2014. 5. Mr. R.K. Jain, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has argued that the orders passed by the trial court which are impugned in the present petition are perfectly justified. The petitioner being not aware and certain of the suit property he could not seek implementation of the interim order dated 09.05.2014. The order of status quo could be implemented only when the petitioner/plaintiff is aware of his own case and in the present case as the petitioner herein is not aware of his own land and its demarcation that is why he filed application for demarcation of the suit property. 6. The order of status quo could be implemented only when the petitioner/plaintiff is aware of his own case and in the present case as the petitioner herein is not aware of his own land and its demarcation that is why he filed application for demarcation of the suit property. 6. The petitioner has sought to counter this argument by submitting that while passing the order of demarcation the court was still under an obligation to see that its order dated 09.05.2014 is carried in letter and spirit and interim order was not dependent upon the demarcation order. The counsels have filed judgments in support of their arguments. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner herein has filed photo-copy of the plaint and the written statement filed in the suit. It is made out from the plaint that the petitioner herein has filed suit against the respondents for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner in respect of the land measuring 600 kanals falling under Khasra No.2, Khewat No. 7, Khata No. 17 situate in village Ghaseetpur Tehsil and District, Jammu. One of the pleas taken by the defendants in their written statement is that the relief claimed by the plaintiff in the present suit in as much as matter in issue raised in the present suit is pertaining to the demarcation of so called land of the plaintiff. The defendants have of course denied the assertions made in the plaint in their written statement. During the course of arguments it is not disputed that during the pendency of the suit the petitioner herein who is plaintiff before the trial court has himself moved an application for demarcation of land and the learned trial court had passed orders for demarcation as mentioned above in the order. No doubt, the learned trial court has passed order of status quo in the interim application at the initial stage of the case but later on when application for implementation of interim order dated 09.05.2014 was passed the orders impugned came to be passed by the said court whereby the Commissioner was appointed for demarcation of the suit land with further directions as contained therein. It is but evident that the plaintiff is not sure of the boundaries of land of which he claims ownership and that is why he had moved application for appointment of Commissioner before the trial court. It is but evident that the plaintiff is not sure of the boundaries of land of which he claims ownership and that is why he had moved application for appointment of Commissioner before the trial court. In the face of the same, the Court does not find any illegality in the orders impugned in the present petition which call for any interference. It is not that the trial court has refused prayer of the petitioner. It is just that the court has in the facts and circumstances of the case deemed it necessary to pass order for demarcation of the land before executing the interim order. 8. The argument of the petitioner that despite the fact that the Commissioner has been appointed for demarcation of land the order of status quo passed by the court is required to be implemented even in the absence of the report of the Commissioner cannot be accepted. It is not that, as observed above, the trial court has refused implementation of its own order. In fact, the orders impugned will only prima facie clarify the position on spot at least for purpose of giving effect to the order of status quo as passed by the trial court. The demarcation of the land may or may not be acceptable to the party/parties to the suit yet the same can help the court in implementing its order of status quo if required. The judgment of the high court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein in case titled Daljit Singh v. Gurnaam Singh and others, (CR No. 42/2020) decided on 13.07.2020 does not apply in the present case as the petitioners in the case in hand are not sure of the suit land of which the implementation of status quo order is sought for through police agency which was not the case in aforesaid judgment. No doubt, the facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable. 9. The Court does not find any reason to interfere with the orders impugned in the present petition. The petition is dismissed. The court does not find any reason to exercise supervisory jurisdiction in the matter. No doubt, the facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable. 9. The Court does not find any reason to interfere with the orders impugned in the present petition. The petition is dismissed. The court does not find any reason to exercise supervisory jurisdiction in the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Commissioner has not filed the report despite order of the trial court which in any case is causing hindrance in the implementation of the interim order passed by the trial court. In case the petitioner is not satisfied with the authority nominated to act as Commissioner it is for him to approach the trial court and seek requisite remedy in this regard. The petitioner is also at liberty to bring any other evidence on record in support of applications filed for implementation of interim order. It is made clear that the Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to merits of the main case. The petition is disposed of.