In a writ petition under Article 227, the High Court rejected counsel's submission that a trial court should decide an application for police aid instead of a pending crop harvesting application. Finding no evidence of crop destruction in the record, the court dismissed the petition, refusing to interfere with the lower court's decision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 40
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6398 of 2019
Petitioner :- Arun And 3 Others Respondent :- Baliram And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Milan Mishra
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
The instant petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 7.8.2019 passed by trial court in Original Suit No.976 of 2016. By the said order, the trial court has held that it will first decide application 147 Ga filed by the petitioners. The said application was filed in pursuance of the direction given by this Court vide its order dated 25.3.2019 in Matters under Article 227 No.1960 of 2019.
The petitioners instituted the suit in question for permanent prohibitory injunction. An order of temporary injunction was passed in their favour by the trial court on 7.12.2018. It seems that aggrieved thereby, the defendants had filed an appeal before the District Judge, which is stated to be pending. During pendency of the appeal, the defendants filed a petition under Article 227 mentioned above. It was disposed of by this Court by order dated 25.3.2019 directing the trial court to appoint an Observer on consensus of the parties for supervising harvesting of crop standing over the suit land. It was also provided that the harvested crop shall not be sold without the permission of the Court. After passing of the said order, an application 147 Ga was filed by the plaintiff-petitioners for permitting them to harvest wheat crop standing on the field at the relevant time. When the said application remained undecided, the petitioners filed a petition under Article 227 No.4286 of 2019, which was disposed of on 24.5.2019 with direction to the trial court to decide the application, if possible on the next date. It seems that the application still remain undecided. The petitioners thereafter filed an application 162 Ga, wherein they made a prayer that the defendants are interfering in tilling of the field, therefore, police aid be provided to them so as to implement the order of temporary injunction dated 7.12.2018. By impugned order dated 7.8.2019, the trial court has observed that it will first decide the application 147 Ga filed by the petitioners in pursuance of the direction issued by this Court on 25.3.2019.
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the court below erred in fixing a date for disposal of the application 147 Ga, as according to him, the said application has already been rendered infructuous in view of the fact that the standing wheat crop had got destroyed by now. He submitted that the court below should
have fixed date for disposal of the application 162 Ga.
I have perused the application 162 Ga. In the said application, it is nowhere stated by the petitioners that their previous application 147 Ga has been rendered infructuous. There is also no mention in the said application that standing wheat crop had got destroyed by vagaries of nature and that the application 162 Ga being filed by the petitioners subsequently deserves to be decided.
Consequently, this Court finds no good ground to interfere with the impugned order. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J)
Order Date :- 27.9.2019 SL
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's order to decide an pending application for crop harvesting before an application for police aid.
Whether the trial court erred in disregarding the petitioners' claim that the wheat crop was destroyed while deciding the subsequent application.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Arun And 3 Others
Baliram And 4 Others
Manoj Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
