Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Anant Shri Sukhramji Trust And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 16 July, 1996
Equivalent citations: AIR1997RAJ32
ORDER P.C. Jain, J.
1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 115, C. P.C. against the order dated 25-2-1995 passed by Shri Gheesa Lal Chaudhary, RHJS, Addl. Distt. Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in C.A.O. No. 12/95 allowing the same against the order dated 18-1-1995 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (JD), No. 2, Jodhpur whereby the application under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 was rejected relating to Civil Original Suit No. 69/94 filed by the plaintiffs respondents Nos. 3 & 4.
2. The material facts to be noticed for the disposal of this petition are that respondents 1 & 2 advertised the requirement of a building to install a telephone exchange at Berai. The village Berai consists of 900 houses out of 300 families are residing in the dhanies. It appears that the petitioners contacted the Jodhpur Office of the Telecommunication District Manager, Deptt. of Telecommunication, Shastri Circle, Jodhpur for installing the telephone exchange at Ram Choki. The residents of village Berai felt aggrieved by the contemplated installation of the telephone exchange at Ram Choki and they resisted the move. However, when they found that procedings were going on for installing the telephone exchange at Ram Choki, Babulal and Balaram filed a representative suit against the respondents Nos. 1 & 2 as also against the petitioners before the learned Munsif for permanent injunction restraining non-petitioners 1 & 2 from installing the proposed telephone exchange at village Berai. They also filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2, C.P.C. After hearing the parties the learned Munsif by his order dated 18-1-1995 dismissed the application of the plaintiffs for granting temporary injunction. The appellants Babulal and Balaram, therefore, preferred the appeal before the learned Addl. Distt. Judge who disposed of the same by his judgment dated 25-2-1995. A perusal of the judgment of the learned Appellate Court shows that the learned Appellate Court in para 8 of the judgment found non-compliance of the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8, Section 80(2), C.P.C. as also Section 90, C.P.C. After pointing the above defects instead of dismissing the application, the learned Appellate Court remanded the matter to the trial Court, but, at the same time ordered for maintaining the status quo.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the non-petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the appellate order on the ground that the learned Appellate Court has found that the plaintiffs filed the representative suit even without complying the mandatory provisions of Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C. The suit further suffers from the defects of non-compliance with the provisions of Sections 80(2) and 91, C.P.C. The learned Appellate Court, therefore, failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it to decide the matter accordingly. The learned Appellate Court erroneously remanded the matter to the trial Court. He acted with material irregularity or illegality in ordering for maintaining the status quo particularly when maintainability of the suit was found questionable. Secondly, on merits also there was no prima facie case found in favour of the plaintiffs. In response to the advertisement made by non-petitioners Nos. 1 & 2, the petitioners offered a suitable house accommodation for installing the telephone exchange whereas the plaintiff who hail from village Berai did not offered any such accommodation and no such accommodation was also found available to the non-petitioners. It was also contested that the convenience was not in favour of the plaintiffs inasmuch as the non-petitioners did not incur additional expenditure as stated by the plaintiffs in their application. The non-peti-tioners further pointed out that as per the policy of the Govt. of India the Telecom-munication Deptt. entertains application for installing a telephone exchange if certain number of persons apply for telephone con-nections. It is, therefore, clear that if the residents of village Berai wants the installa-tion of a telephone exchange, they can apply for the same and the application will be processed on merits. Learned counsel further pointed out that the petitioners first put requisite number of applications for installing the telephone exchange. The matter was examined at the administration level of the Telecommunication Deptt. and finding the feasibility of installing the telephone exchange at Ram Choki, the Administrative Sanction was accorded. The plaintiffs cannot agitate the matter only on the ground that by installing the telephone exchange at Ram Choki, they would be put to extra financial burden if they obtain telephone connections inasmuch as the monthly rent etc. will be more than that paid by the residents of Ram Choki.
5. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner has supported the order of the learned Appellate Court on the ground that if the order of the status quo would not be main- tained, complications could arise. The defects pointed out by the learned Appellate Court could be removed by plaintiffs and the learned Appellate Court was, therefore, wrong in remitting the matter to the trial Court to enable the plaintiffs to rectify the defects pointed out by the learned Appellate Court. He has submitted that if the telephone exchange is installed at Ram Choki instead of village Berai, the residents of Berai would be put to extra financial burden. The rent that would be charged from them would be higher than that of the residents of village Ram Choki. The plaintiffs, therefore, had a better claim necessitating the installation of the telephone exchange at village Berai where the non-petitioners initially proposed. He, there-fore, submitted that all the three ingredients which entitled a party to obtain temporary injunction were available in favour of the plaintiffs.
6. I have considered the respective con-tentions and perused the record. In Guru Nanak Dev University v. Rajesh Bhaskar, AIR 1993 SC 2412, the Apex Court cautioned the Courts from passing the loose ill-con-cieved orders which normally expose judicial discretion to the criticism of degenerating into private benevolence. It was, therefore, em-phasised that decisions on matter relevant to be taken into account at interlocutory stage cannot be decided later when serious complication might ensure from interim order itself. In the instant case the learned Appellate Court has found the frame of the suit filed by the plaintiffs suffering from various legal lacunae. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was a representative suit and the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C. squarely applied to the case. The learned Munsif's lost sight of the fact that he entertained the suit and disposed of the interim application even without examining the fact that the plaintiffs had not complied with the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C. Further the plaintiffs also did not comply with the provisions of Sections 80(2) and 91, C.P.C. as pointed out by the learned Appellate Court. The substance of the observations of the learned Appllate Court was that the suit as instituted by the plaintiffs was defective and could not have been entertained on merits much less as regards the relief which could be awarded on the basis of an interim application. After pointing out the above defects the course left for the Appellate Court was to dismiss the application. In the facts and circumstances, he could have given liberty to the plaintiffs to move another application after rectifying the defects pointed out by him in the suit. I even do not find any prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs. The Telecommunication Deptt. examined the case after making survey and the availability of the accommodation for installing the telephone exchange. I do not find any evidence that by according administrative sanction for installing the telephone exchange at Ram Choki, the Telecommunication Deptt. was guided by extraneous consideration as alleged by the plaintiffs. It is a fact that before the plaintiffs agitated the matter, requisite number of applications has been received by the non-petitioners for telephone connections. As a matter of fact according to the policy of the Govt. of India (Telecom. Deptt.), the applications' merited consideration for installing the telephone exchange and after taking into consideration the administrative convenience and the availability of accommodation that the administrative sanction was accorded. If the residents of village Berai want to avoid extra financial burden they can be advised to move for installing a telephone exchange at their village by complying with the requirements for such a facility as laid down by the Govt. of India. In my opinion the learned Appellate Court was not justified in ordering for the maintenance of status quo particularly when the infrastructure for installing the telephone exchange has been deposited to the site. Huge financial loss may occur to the department if the installation of telephone exchange is delayed. There will be great revenue loss to the department if telephone connections are not issued after going ahead with the scheme.
7. For the above reasons, I accept the petition set aside the order of the learned Additional District Judge. The parties are left to bear their own costs.