Nilratan Mahapatra vs State of West Bengal

Re: Application for Stay (A.S.T.A. 96 of 2013)

Despite service of notice none appears on behalf of the private respondents. Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept on record.

This application has been filed in connection with the appeal preferred from the order dated 8th August, 2013 whereby a learned Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition with costs.

From the records we find that a civil suit was filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, 1st Court, Paschim Medinipur being Title Suit No. 83 of 2013 and an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC was also filed in connection with the said suit. The learned Civil Judge passed an order on the said application on 20th March, 2013 by directing the parties to maintain status quo, in respect of the suit property as on the date of the order and not to change its nature and character till 20th April, 2013.

According to the appellant the order of status quo was violated at the instance of the private respondents.

The petitioner herein by the written representation dated 30th July, 2013 informed the Officer-in-Charge, Keshpur Police Station about the throat and other illegalities committed by or at the instance of the private respondents. Thereafter, alleging inaction on the part of the police authorities, writ petition was filed before the learned Single Judge.

The learned Single Judge most unfortunately at the very first paragraph of the impugned order made certain remarks about the learned Civil Judge. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order under appeal specifically observed that the said learned Civil Judge was a lazy Civil Judge and the order of status quo passed by the said Judge was an unreasoned order.

The learned Single Judge had no material for arriving at the aforesaid conclusion. The order passed by the learned Civil Judge on 20th March, 2013 is set out hereunder:

The petition under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. is moved.

Perused the prayer along with the affidavit filed and documents submitted.

This is a suit for declaration with consequential relief.

By filing this petition, the Plaintiff has prayed for an order of ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendant No. 1 to 9 from disturbing the peaceful possession of the Plaintiff over the suit property and from changing its nature and character therein. In support of their case, the Plaintiff has filed some documents.

On perusal of the materials on record and considering the submissions made by the Ld. Advocate for the Plaintiff, it appears to this Court that the Plaintiff has been successful in establishing his prima facie case. The balance of convenience and inconvenience is also in favour of the Plaintiff and if injunction is not granted, it will cause irreparable loss and injury to the Plaintiff. Considering urgency in the matter this Court is inclined to pass an order of ad interim injunction in the form of status quo at this stage of hearing since delay may frustrate the actual purpose of the suit.

Both parties to the suit are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property as on today and not to change its nature and character till 20.04.2013.

Issue notice upon the Defendants to show cause within 10 days from the receipt of the same as to why the prayer for temporary Injunction of the Plaintiff shall not be allowed.

Plaintiff to comply mandatory provision under Order 39 Rule 3(a) & (b) of C.P.C. Requisites at once.

We are, however, of the opinion that the learned Civil Judge passed an appropriate reasoned order, which the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate. The learned Civil Judge concerned should not have been described as a lazy Judge in absence of any material. The judgment and order passed by a Judge can be criticised but the Court should refrain from making any personal remarks against another Judge.

We cannot forget that superiority in the judicial hierarchy cannot grant a licence to abuse a member of subordinate judiciary.

In the case of Smt. Mona Panwar Vs. The Hon''ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Others, , Hon''ble Supreme Court observed:-

Para-26. This Court has laid down in several reported decisions that the Higher Courts should observe restraint and disparaging remarks normally should not be made against the learned members of the lower judiciary. In Ishwari Prasad Misra vs. Mohd. Isa a three-Judge Bench of this Court has emphasised the need to adopt utmost judicial restraint against using strong language and imputation of motive against the lower judiciary by noticing that in such matters the Judge concerned has no remedy in law to vindicate his position.

Para-28. Again, in K.P. Tiwari vs. State of M.P. this Court had to remind all concerned that using in temperate language and castigating strictures on the members in the lower judiciary diminishes the image of the judiciary in the eyes of public and, therefore, the Higher Courts should refrain from passing disparaging remarks against the members of the lower judiciary.

The order of status quo passed by the learned Civil Judge was not an unreasoned order under any circumstances and, therefore, the said Civil Judge had no scope to correct itself in future as observed by the learned Single Judge.

The police authorities are under obligation and duty bound to maintain law and order in the area under their jurisdiction and control. The police authorities should also implement the order passed by the law Courts without any hesitation and delay.

Therefore, the police authorities namely the Officer in Charge, Keshpur Police Station, Paschim Medinipur could not remain idle in spite of receiving a specific complaint from the appellant herein.

Learned advocate of the State respondents submits that the Officer in Charge concerned has already started a case after receiving the complaint from the appellant.

Learned advocate of the appellant submits that the private respondents are threatening the family members of the appellant with dire consequences and the local police authorities are not taking appropriate steps against the private respondents.

In any event, we are of the opinion that the police authority should maintain peace and tranquility in the area in question in every possible manner. Therefore, we direct the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to take all necessary steps for maintaining peace and tranquility in the area in question and also to ensure safety and security of the life and property of the petitioner and his family members in every possible manner.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, we set aside the impugned order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge and dispose of both the application as well as the appeal upon treating the said appeal as on day''s list. In the facts of the present case, there will be no order as to costs. Let a photostat plain copy of this order duly counter--signed by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be handed over to the learned advocates for the parties on usual undertaking.