Ram Achal vs Civil Judge (J.D.) Hawali and Others

Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Shrawan Kumar Tiwari, learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner and Sri Nripendra Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Manish Kumar, learned Counsel for the opposite parties.

Facts, in brief, as stated by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner are that initially Petitioner-Plaintiff has initially filed a suit for permanent injunction, registered as Regular Suit No. 69 of 2004, Ram Achal and Ors. v. Lal Bux Singh in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hawaii, Faizabad.

Further, in the said suit, the Petitioner moved an application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 CPC as per the averment made in paragraph No. 4 of the present writ petition and the same is still pending.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submit that in the matter pending before the Trial Court the pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and issues are framed but in spite of the said facts neither application for grant of temporary injunction nor the suit in question has been decided. Hence the present writ petition has been filed with the only prayer that:

(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to decide the injunction application as well as the Civil Suit bearing Regular Suit No. 69 of 2004, Ram Achal and Ors. v. Lal Bux Singh and Ors. pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) Hawaii, Faizabad, if possible, within three months.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

As per the judicial system which prevails in our country in order to settle the dispute and get redressal of the grievance, various Courts are set up, one of the forum is before the Court where a person for redressal of his grievance can file a suit etc.

Once suit is filed, the same is to be decided as per procedure provided, for the Said purpose i.e. pleadings have to be exchanged, evidence to be led etc. In addition to said fact it is also to be kept in mind the pendency of other matters in a particular Court while deciding and expediting a particular matter out of turn and the same is to be done in rare cases taking into consideration the exceptional circumstances for, for example, the controversy which is involved in a suit is such a nature that the matter should be decided expeditiously or the party to a suit is an old citizen and they should get the fruit of the dispute during their lifetime etc.

In the present case, learned Counsel for the Petitioner does not point out any reason or circumstance why the suit in question be expedited given priority over the other suits which are pending in the same Court prior to filing and institution of the suit by the Petitioner/Plaintiff.

In view of the abovesaid facts, the prayers as made before the Petitioner for expediting suit in question cannot be granted.

For the foregoing reasons, the relief as claimed by the Petitioner for expediting the suit in question lacks merit, accordingly the present writ petition is dismissed.

However, the Trial Court shall make all endeavour to decide the application for temporary injunction moved on behalf of the Petitioner in the matter in question after hearing the Counsel for the parties in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receiving of certified copy of this order.

With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed.

No order as to costs.