Babu Lal Pandey vs Commissioner and Others

Bala Krishna Narayana, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and 7 and Sri N.N. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 6.

The Petitioner has filed this writ petition against the order dated 25.3.2011 (annexure No. 9 to the writ petition) passed by the Respondent No. 1 by which he has rejected the stay application filed by the Petitioner in Appeal No. 9/33/G of 2007 filed before him against the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2007 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar District Gorakhpur in Suit No. 109 of 2006-07.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that once the Respondent No. 1 had admitted the appeal preferred by the Petitioner against the judgment and decree passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar it was incumbent upon him to have passed an interim order in favour of the Petitioner as the judgment and decree against which the appeal was preferred by the Petitioner carried civil consequences.

In support of his contention learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Bhagwan Shankar Bajpayee v. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar 2009 ADJ (1) 684.

I have very carefully examined the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the other materials brought on record.

It is undisputed that prior to the filing of the application for interim relief of which the impugned order has been passed, the Petitioner had filed two other stay applications which had been rejected on merits.

The submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the appellate Court was bound to grant interim relief to the Petitioner while admitting his appeal is misconceived.

The judgment of this Court in Bhagwan Shankar Bajpayee (supra) relied upon by the Petitioner has no application to the facts and circumstances to the present case as by the order against which the appeal was preferred in the case of Bhagwan Shankar Bajpayee (supra) land belonging to the Appellant was declared surplus and in case the operation of the order against which appeal was filed was not stayed the possession of the land declared surplus would have been taken from the Appellant. In the aforesaid case the order against which the appeal was filed had civil consequences but in the instant case the judgment and decree against which the Petitioner has filed the appeal his suit for being declared bhumidhar of the plots in dispute had been dismissed and, in my opinion, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court do not carry any civil consequences.

Even otherwise the impugned order is based upon relevant considerations and supported by cogent reasons.

Thus, the Respondent No. 1 did not commit any error or irregularity in rejecting the stay application filed by the Petitioner.

The prayer for quashing the impugned order is refused.

However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case the Respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the Petitioners appeal No. 9/33/G of 2007 pending before him as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.