Prem Nath vs Rajinder Singh & Others

Tashi Rabstan, J

This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 21.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.2234/2022, whereby the learned Single Judge while issuing notice, has stayed the interim order dated 11.10.2022 passed by the Director Local Bodies, Jammu and posted the matter for 28.11.2022.

A perusal of the file reveals that appellant-Prem Nath and respondent-Rajinder Singh competed for the post of President, Municipal Council, Kathua. The election result was declared on 19.09.2022 in which respondent-Rajinder Singh was shown to have been declared as President. Feeling aggrieved, appellant-Prem Nath filed an election petition before the Director Urban Local Bodies, Jammu, who vide order dated 11.10.2022 directed to maintain status-quo with regard to the further proceedings in the matter. Against the said order, respondent-Rajinder Singh, filed WP(C) No.2234/2022 and a Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 21.10.2022 has stayed the interim order dated 11.10.2022 passed by the Director Local Bodies, Jammu and posted the matter for 28.11.2022. Hence, the present appeal on behalf of appellant-Prem Nath.

A perusal of order dated 21.10.2022 reveals that although the learned Single Judge has stayed the order dated 11.10.2022 passed by the Director Local Bodies, Jammu, yet the staying of order dated 11.10.2022 was subject to modification/addition/alteration upon objections, to be filed by appellant-Prem Nath and posted the matter for 28.11.2022; meaning thereby appellant-Prem Nath has been given liberty to file objections to the writ petition so as to put forth his stance for recalling or otherwise of the interim order dated 21.10.2022. Instead of filing objections, appellant-Prem Nath has filed the instant appeal. In our view, before filing the instant appeal, appellant-Prem Nath first ought to have filed objections to the writ petition as well as to CM well before 28.11.2022, when the matter has been directed to be listed. Even if there is any urgency, the appellant has the right to lay a motion before the learned Single Judge for early hearing of the matter.

What is held by the Apex Court in Shyam Sel and Power Limited vs Shyam Steel Industries Limited, Civil Appeal No.1984 of 2022 decided on 14.03.2022, is relevant to reproduce hereunder:

“It is thus clear that there was no adjudication with regard to the rights of the respondent-plaintiff to get an ad-interim injunction during the pendency of the suit. Though by postponement of the issue with regard to grant of ad-interim injunction, the order might have caused some inconvenience and may be, to some extent, prejudice to the respondent-plaintiff; the same could not be treated as a „judgment‟ inasmuch as there was no conclusive finding as to whether the respondent-plaintiff was entitled for grant of ad-interim injunction or not. As such, the order passed by the learned Single Judge did not contain the traits and trappings of finality. If it is held otherwise, this will open a floodgate of appeals for parties who may even challenge the order of adjournment or grant of time to the other side to file affidavit-in-reply. We are therefore of the considered view that the order dated 2nd April 2019 cannot be construed to be a „judgment‟ within the meaning of Clause 15 of Letters Patent and as such, the appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court was not tenable.”

Viewed thus, without touching the merits of the case, we dismiss the appeal along with connected CM.