Gauhati High Court
Ganesh Chetri And Ors. vs Zantsemo Murry And Ors. on 6 December, 2004
JUDGMENT B.P. Katakey, J.
1. By this application the petitioners have challenged the entire proceeding of T.S. No. 10/04 pending in the Court of the learned ADC(J) Wokha and also the ex parte order of ad interim injunction dated 31.8.2004 passed by the learned Court below restraining the defendant-petitioners or their Agents from undertaking any kind of development, construction, sale of land etc. within the suit land, till further order.
2. I have heard Mr. R. Iralu the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Y.I. Singh the learned counsel for respondents.
3. The writ petitioners by this writ petition sought to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as according to him the proceedings in T.S. No. 10/04 cannot proceed in view of settlement of the dispute between the parties by the appropriate Court as reflected in Annexures 4 and 5 orders dated 16.5.1996 and 7.8.2004 respectively, passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, District Magistrate, Wokha, Nagaland and District Magistrate, Wokha, Nagaland. The writ petitioners have also made a statement that they have already filed a written statement wherein the maintainability of the suit before the learned Court below has also been questioned.
4. The jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is a supervisory jurisdiction which is exercised to kept the subordinate Courts within the bound of law. The High Court cannot in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India act as an appellate Court and also cannot correct each and every error but can correct an error which is self-evident or patent. The power under that 227 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised in far and rare cases and also sparingly. The Court shall refuse to exercise its power if the petitioner has adequate alternative remedy.
5. In the present case, the writ petitioners have already raised the question of maintainability of the suit by filing written statement in the suit. The said question of maintainability can only be gone into by the Court below after appreciation of the materials on record. This Court in exercise of the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot decide the question of maintainability of the suit.
6. Further, the order of injunction passed by the learned trial Court being ex parte ad interim order, appeal lies against the said order. The trial Court has also issued notice to the writ petitioners/defendants and a date for hearing injunction petition was fixed. Therefore, this Court cannot interfere with the said ex parte order of injunction in exercise of the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, since no glaring and patent illegality has been able to point out by the writ petitioners.
7. Therefore, in my view the petitioners cannot get any relief in the present writ petition. Since the writ petitioners have already filed written statement in the suit, the learned trial Court shall proceed to decide the suit in accordance with law. The learned trial Court shall also decide the injunction matter, after hearing both the parties, within a period of 1(one) month from today.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the interim order passed by this Court in the writ petition and for the ends of justice, I direct the parties to maintain status quo as on today, with regard to the disputed land, till the injunction matter is decided by the learned trial Court as directed.
With the above observations and directions, the writ petition as well as the Misc Case stands disposed.