Madhya Pradesh High Court
Middle India Radhasoami Charitable ... vs Harru on 28 February, 2013
1
W.P. No.3400/2012 & W.P. No.3401/2012
28/2/2013
Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel, Shri
Imtiaz Hussain and Smt. Nidhi Verma for the petitioner.
Shri P. R. Bhave, learned Senior Counsel with Shri J. K.
Verma for the respondents.
In both these petitions challenges are made to the orders passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court in the matter of deciding the applications filed for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2. Petitioners in both these petitions are plaintiffs and they claim to be the title holder and Bhumiswami of the land. It is said that these lands were given to the private respondents every year on the basis of a system which is know as "Khot". Dispute arose between the parties with regard to the possession of the land. Plaintiffs petitioners claim that after the period for which the land was given on Khot in the agricultural year 2009-2010 was over the petitioners were themselves cultivating the land but as the respondents, who belong to the Adiwasi Community started interference. Suit for declaration was filed and in the suit an application for temporary injunction was filed. Injunction having been refused by both the Courts, these writ petitions have been filed.
Serious contentions have been raised by both the parties and various dispute have been pointed out. However, it is seen that the dispute which was canvassed before this Court at the time of hearing if adverted to on merits, will result in recording certain findings which goes to the root of the matter and may adversely effect the right of the parties to suit in question. That apart, it is seen that when notices were 2 issued in this writ petition more than a year back on 29.2.2012, parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to possession of the land in question. Taking note of the aforesaid, interim order passed and considering the nature of dispute involved in the matter, I am of the considered view that it is not necessary for this Court to advert to the rival contentions on merit in these proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution. Instead interest of justice would be met in case the Trial Court where the suit is pending is directed to dispose of the suit in accordance to law after hearing all concerned within a reasonable time.
Keeping in view the aforesaid following directions are issued :-
"The Trial Court where the suit in question are pending is directed to take a decision in the suit and decide it in accordance to law within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties. Parties shall appear before the Trial Court along with certified copy of this order on 15.3.2013. Till the suit is not decided and during the pendency of the suit the order of status quo that was passed by this Court with regard to possession of the land in question as on 29.2.2012 shall continue to remain in operation. Order of status quo would mean that the party who is in possession shall be entitled to cultivate the land and use it during the pendency of the suit.
In case any party tries to disobey the order of status quo, the aggrieved part is granted liberty to move the Trial Court and the Trial Court after taking note of the totality of 3 circumstances, shall issue necessary orders with regard to maintenance of status quo as ordered by this Court. If required, the learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to issue necessary directions to the District administration and police authorities also for the purpose of maintaining law and order and the rights of the parties arising out of the order of status quo.
With the aforesaid, both the petitions stands disposed of.
c.c. as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE mrs.Mishra