Bagh Singh vs Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Others

Narendra Kumar Jain, J.—The aforesaid two writ petitions arise out of one suit in between both the parties, therefore, both were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

Both the writ petitions are admitted.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction in the trial court against defendant-respondents in respect of disputed way alongwith an application for temporary injunction. The trial court vide its order dated 27th November, 2006 appointed Shri Imran Pathan, advocate to go at the spot and prepare a site report and also passed the order maintaining status-quo in respect of disputed way. The Commissioner prepared his report dated 28th November, 2006. During the pendency of application for temporary injunction, an another application was filed and second Commissioner was appointed, who submitted his report on 23rd August, 2007. The grievance of the defendant-respondents before the trial court was that inspite of status-quo order passed by the trial court on 27th November, 2006 and report of Commissioner dated 28th November, 2006, the plaintiff himself blocked the disputed way and he tried to make interference to use the disputed way by defendants. Both the parties filed an application u/s 151 CPC for their respective grievances but trial court vide its order dated 14th November,2007 disposed of both the applications filed by both the parties u/s 151 CPC and directed the plaintiff to restore the position of disputed way as per report of court commissioner dated 28th November, 2006. Being aggrieved with the same, the present writ petitions have been preferred on behalf of the plaintiff.

The learned Counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner referred the Commissioner''s report dated 23rd August, 2007 alongwith site plan prepared by Commissioner and pointed out that the disputed way is still in existence which has been marked as A to B, therefore, the plaintiff has not put any obstruction in the way of the defendants. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that his undertaking on behalf of the plaintiff, who is present in person in court, may be recorded that the disputed way as per report of Commissioner dated 28th November,2006 is still in existence and he will not put any obstruction or make interference of the defendants to use the same during the pendency of the application for temporary injunction before the trial court.

In view of the aforesaid undertaking furnished by the plaintiff who is present in the Court and his counsel on his behalf, nothing remains to be decided in the writ petitions and the same are disposed of.

The trial court is directed to decide the application for temporary injunction pending in the case as early as possible preferably within a period of one month from today. It is needless to mention that the trial court will decide the application independently in accordance with law without being influenced by its earlier order or this order also.

There will be no order as to costs.

Since two writ petitions have been disposed of by a common order, therefore, one copy of this order may be placed on record in connected case.

Consequent upon the disposal of writ petitions, the stay applications, connected therewith, do not survive and the same also stand disposed of.