Allahabad High Court
M/S Tele Build Construction Private ... vs Civil Judge And 4 Others on 7 December, 2020
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 66 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3453 of 2020 Petitioner :- M/S Tele Build Construction Private Limited Respondent :- Civil Judge And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhiraj Singh,Praveen Kumar Shukla Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
A temporary injunction application is pending in O.S. No. 309 of 2018. The suit is pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad. The petitioners are plaintiffs, whereas the respondent nos. 2 to 5 are defendants to the suit. The suit has been instituted by the plaintiff-petitioners, praying that the Trial Court do grant a permanent injunction, restraining the defendants or their agents or associates perpetually from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over free hold Plot No. L/2, Civil Station, Allahabad, whereon House No. 39/31 Tashkand Marg, Edmiston, Civil Lines, Allahabad, and further, from transferring the said property by way of sale to any third party and to preserve its original nature and character. A temporary injunction application with a prayer in the same terms but in temporary form has also been made on 11.07.2018. It is pointed out that no ad interim injunction was granted by the learned Trial Judge vide order dated 11.07.2018 but notice was issued to the defendants on the temporary injunction application, returnable on 25.07.2018. The proceedings of the temporary injunction application are lingering on, mostly on account of two causes, viz; the Presiding Officer being on leave, or members of the Bar being on strike.
The Court has perused the order sheet from 11.07.2018 to 20.04.2020. A reading of the order sheet leaves a clear impression with this Court that the temporary injunction application between 11.07.2018 and 19.03.2020 has been adjourned on account of these two causes predominantly, that is to say, the strike by the members of the Bar or the Presiding Officer being on leave. This Court notices that defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4 to the suit have appeared and filed their objections to the temporary injunction application, besides their written statement in the suit on 15.11.2018.
The Trial Court and the members of the district Bar would be well reminded that the Presiding Officer as well as the learned members of the Bar grace the Court for the august task of dispensing justice or aiding that sovereign enterprise. Moreover, strike by the members of the Bar is a malady that has rendered the Civil Courts dys-functional. Strikes by members of the Bar have been declared unlawful by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in District Bar Association, Dehradun through its Secretary vs. Ishwar Shandilya and others, 2020 SCC Online SC 244.
It is the expectation of this Court that the civil judicature ought rightfully be a vibrant forum to settle disputes, civil in nature, and neither the learned Presiding Officers or the learned Members of the Bar ought to act in a manner, as if they were mere public servants or functionaries of the State assigned some routine duties that another can perform. Both sides have been entrusted to discharge together the divine function of justice and they must live up to that role.
This Court does wish to say as a general reminder to the Presiding Officers of Courts also, that leave ought not to be taken merely because it is due in the leave account of the Judge concerned. A judicial day is too precious to be lost to the mere exercise of the Prescribed Officer's right to leave, if it could be regarded a right at all. This is not to say that for a just cause, a Presiding Officer cannot avail leave. But, being a Judge, he ought to do so in keeping with his conscience and the importance of his duty that he performs everyday in Court. The order sheet here shows that between 11.07.2018 and 19.03.2020, the Presiding Officer was on leave on six days, whereas the members of the Bar struck work for nine days. There are two dates fixed in the matter, that is to say, 13.12.2019 and 24.02.2020, when the Presiding Officer was on leave and the Members of the Bar were on strike. This cannot be permitted to happen. The learned District Judge ought to take notice of these remarks and take the members of the Bar into confidence in the matter.
Looking to the nature of the order that this Court proposes to make, notice to respondent nos. 2 to 5 is dispensed with. However, in case the said respondents feel aggrieved by the order made today, it shall open to them to make an application in the decided matter.
In the circumstances of the case, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad before whom O.S. No. 309 of 2018 M/s Tele Build Construction vs. Ashok Kumar Pandey is pending, is directed to decide the temporary injunction application within one month next, taking up the same on a day to day basis.
Learned District Judge, Allahabad is directed to ensure that even if members of the Bar are on strike, learned counsel for the parties here shall be requested to appear. For the purpose, all necessary assistance shall be rendered by the learned District Judge to the learned counsel appearing in this case to enable them to discharge their duties.
This writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order. There shall be no orders as to costs.
Let this order of communicated to the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad through the learned District Judge, Allahabad by the Joint Registrar (Compliance) within 48 hours.
Order Date :- 7.12.2020 Deepak