Jharkhand High Court
Shree Krishna Murari Choudhary vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 May, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 JHA 629
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P (C) No. 6112 of 2018
Shree Krishna Murari Choudhary, aged about 50 years, son of Rajendra
Choudhary, through it's the then Director of M/s Jai Maa Jagdamba Flour
(P) Limited, having its Office-Panduki, P.O-Nag Nagar, P.S-Barwadda,
District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) .......Plaintiff/ Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand.
2.The Certificate Officer-cum-Executive Magistrate, Dhanbad, P.O, P.s &
District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand)
3.The Secretary, Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee, Dhanbad , P.O-
Nag Nagar, P.S-Barwadda, District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand)
...... Defendants/Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. A.K. Singh, Adv.
-----------
th
6/Dated: 10 May, 2019
This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the order dated 04.08.2018 passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division-VII has been assailed by which the preliminary issue with respect to deciding the maintainability of the suit has been framed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.6990 of 2017 dated 06.02.2018 (Annexure-4) has submitted that he has approached this Court seeking two fold reliefs; first pertains to disposal of application filed under the provision of Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C and application dated 22.07.2017 filed by the defendant Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee, Dhanbad- respondent no.3 for deciding the maintainability of the suit, and this Court by the aforesaid order has been pleased to pass an order by directing the trial judge for early disposal of these applications, but the trial judge although has framed the issue but not in accordance with law, therefore, this writ petition has been filed.
3. Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pratima Sinha and Ors vs. Shashi Kumar Narain Sinha and Ors. reported in (2004) 13 SCC 599 wherein while dealing with procedure under Order XIV Rule 1 of the C.P.C the requirement of law is to frame all the issues and if the trial judge is of the view that any of the issues raised would dispose of the suit either wholly or in part then the Judge may on the basis of the provisions of Order XIV Rule 2 decide such issue.
4. Dr. A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has submitted that the trial court is proceeding in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.6990 of 2017 and since there is a direction for early disposal of the application dated 20.08.2016 and application dated 22.07.2017, therefore, the trial judge in order to dispose of the petition dated 22.07.2017 filed for issuance of maintainability have framed the preliminary issue since according to him in absence of preliminary issue the proper adjudication could not be made. He further submits that the trial judge has acted in terms of the order passed by this Court.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after appreciating the rival submission it is evident from the material available on record that the suit has been filed for declaration about the legality and propriety of the decision of the Certificate Officer with respect to demand raised by the respondent no.3 wherein the petitioner has filed one petition for getting temporary injunction by filing petition under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C and the defendant no.3 has filed petition dated 22.07.2017 raising the maintainability of the suit.
The petitioner has approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C) No.6990 of 2017 praying therein for direction upon the trial judge to dispose of the application dated 20.08.2016 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C and application dated 22.07.2017 filed by the defendant raising the maintainability of the suit.
It is evident from the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.6990 of 2017, as contained in Annexure-4, that the trial judge has been directed for early disposal of the application dated 20.08.2016 and application dated 22.07.2017 and by virtue of the same the trial judge has framed a preliminary issue as to whether the suit is maintainable or not or suit is barred by any time in force and the case was posted for hearing it under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C.
The trial court has proceeded for deciding the preliminary issue by allowing the parties to lead their evidence and the plaintiff's evidence has been closed and it is at the stage of defendant's evidence, in the meanwhile the writ petition has been filed being aggrieved with the fact that as yet the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.6990 of 2017 dated 06.02.2018 has not been complied with.
6. The question herein is that if the petitioner is aggrieved with respect to non-action of the trial judge, according to the petitioner, the trial judge has not yet decided these applications in spite of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.6990 of 2017 and as such appropriate direction for early disposal of these applications has been sought for, therefore, he has prayed for another direction by filing this writ petition directing the trial court to dispose of the said petitions which according to the considered view of this Court cannot be passed in view of the fact that since there is already a direction passed by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it would not be proper for this Court in passing consecutive order to dispose of the said petitions.
If the petitioner is aggrieved, his remedy lies elsewhere, not under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
7. In view thereof, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
8. Consequently, I.A. No.1534 of 2019 also stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Saket/-