Durgawati and Another vs Nan Bai and Others

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally.

By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 29-7-05 (Annexure P-7), passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Ambikapur Distt. Surguja, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 07/05 (Nan Bai v. Durgawati and Ors.) whereby, the learned Additional District Judge directed the parties to maintain status quo in mutation proceedings with regard to plaint Schedule ''A'' and as obtained on 27-9-2004.

The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioners are that the respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the half portion of the plaint Schedule ''A'' land. Respondent No. 1/plaintiff, along with the suit, filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "CPC") seeking an injunction in respect of the mutation proceedings before the Revenue Court in respect of the plaint Schedule ''A'' land. The petitioners/defendants opposed the application on the ground that the mutation proceedings initiated by the petitioners/defendants are on the basis of a Will executed by Lalanram in favour of the petitioner 1. Learned Civil Judge, Class I, Ambikapur, by order dated 15-2-2005 (Annexure P-6) observed that if the mutation proceedings with regard to the plaint Schedule ''A'' land is stayed, the petitioner/defendants would suffer irreparable loss and the balance of convenience was also held to be in favour of the petitioners/defendants. In appeal against the order dated 15-2-2005, learned IInd Additional District Judge, Ambikapur, observed that the plaint Schedule ''A'' land is in dispute and as such the mutation proceedings cannot proceed unless the dispute with regard to the title, ownership of the said land is settled by the Civil Court and as such the learned Appellate Court found that the order of the Civil Judge, Class 1 as perverse. Accordingly, learned Appellate Court quashed the order dated 15-2-2005 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Civil Judge, Class 1, and granted status quo in mutation proceedings with regard to the plaint Schedule ''A'' land. Thus, this petition.

The contention of Shri Shukla, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, is that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to stay the mutation proceedings, pending before the Revenue Authorities, under the provisions of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ''CPC'') and the learned Court below, without appreciating the facts and circumstance of the case in its letter and spirit, passed the impugned order, which is against the well settled principles of law.

Shri Shukla, further relies on decisions of Supreme Court passed in the matter of Modi Entertainment Network and Anr. v. W.S.G. Cricket Pte. Ltd. AIR 2003 SCW 733 and Kishore Kumar Khaitan and Anr. v. Praveen Kumar Singh AIR 2006 SCW 1077.

I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleading and documents appended thereto. It is evident that the mutation does not confer any right of the title or ownership. However, when admittedly there is a dispute with regard to title ownership of the land, it is proper that the proceedings before the Revenue Authorities must await the decision of the Civil Court in respect of the ownership right of the land in dispute. The judgment and order dated 15-2-2005 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Civil Judge, Class I, is without any basis and as such if the mutation proceedings is permitted to go on, there would be unnecessary multiplication of the disputes. Therefore, it is well settled that the Civil Court proceedings with regard to die same land must be given precedent. The Appellate Court has rightly considered the dispute in its proper perspective and granted interim relief of status quo with regard to the mutation proceedings by the impugned order. There is no irregularity, illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 29-7-05 (Annexure P-7), passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Ambikapur Distt. Surguja, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 07/05.

In Modi Entertainment Network and Anr. (supra), the question involved was whether the High Court may pass anti-suit injunction retraining the respondents from proceedings with the action between the same parties pending in the English Courts. The case dealt with the principles governing grant of anti-suit injunction by the Court of natural jurisdiction. This is not the case of anti-suit injunction as Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to decide the Bhoomiswami right or ownership right of the land. Thus, the reliance placed by the petitioners is not relevant to the facts of the present case.

In Kishore Kumar Khaitan and Anr. (supra), the dispute was with regard to grant of interim injunction pending suit restraining from respondents to interfere with the plaint schedule property, wherein the order of status quo was not specified, and as such it was observed that interference under Article 227 to correct errors of jurisdiction is permissible. In the facts of the present order of status quo is very clear that mutation proceedings with regard to the plaint Schedule ''A'' land pending before the Revenue Court would maintain status quo, and as such the ratio laid down by Hon''ble the Supreme Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

This Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case.

The order dated 29-7-2005 (Annexure P-7) passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 07/05, is just and proper, warranting no interference.

In view of the foregoing, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs, Consequently, M.W.P. No. 1341 of 2006 also stands dismissed.