The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has issued notice to Lucknow Civil Judge South (Junior Division) Piyush Bharti for not taking the civil suit seriously during the hearing of a petition.
A single-judge bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Daya Agarwal.
It is the case of the petitioner that she had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent praying for restraining the defendant from interference in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff with respect to the property in suit, Model House, Aminabad, Lucknow and that the defendant be restrained from evidence the plaintiff from the property in question, without adopting the due process of law and that they be restrained from demolishing any part of the property in suit which would jeopardize the life of the plaintiff and her children.
The trial court issued notice to the defendant on the application for temporary injunction moved along with the said suit on September 29, 2021 and a commission was issued. The commission report submitted before the trial court indicated that the roof of the property in question was being demolished with the help of labour employed by the defendant.
Since no ad-interim injunction was granted, and only notices were issued, the petitioner moved an application under Section 151 CPC along with photographs of the demolition being undertaken by the defendant, on December 6, 2021 praying that the dates fixed for consideration of application for temporary injunction be advanced.
The Court noted that,
The trial court did not pass any order and directed keeping the application on file as is evident from the order sheet filled as annexure to the petition.
It has been submitted that on October 29, 2021 the defendant / opposite party has put in appearance through their counsel and filed vakalatnama.
The matter was listed on October 29, 2021 and thereafter January 12, 2021 and subsequently, January 2, 2022 and the next date fixed in the matter was February 2, 2022, on which date the trial court has again fixed the matter without making any observation on the application of temporary injunction.
The High Court has perused the extracts of the order sheet of the paper book and found that the trial court had even not cared to sign the order sheet continuously on four dates i.e on 29.10.2021, 12.11.2021, 06.12.2021 and 03.01.2022.
Counsel for the plaintiffs states that the petitioner being faced with demolition has also sent a representation to the District Judge as well as to the District Magistrate praying for their interference to safeguard her life and property. Such applications have also remained undisposed of.
Hence the petition has been filed praying for a direction to be issued to the trial court to decide the application moved by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC at the earliest, and in the meantime to direct the opposite party not to demolish the property in suit.
“In this case the property in question is admittedly being demolished, although by the owner. The defendant to the suit, during the pendency of the suit for permanent injunction. In such cases the trial court should be cognizant of the fact that in the event the property in question is demolished, it would cause irreparable loss and damage to the plaintiff, who is living as a tenant therein. In such matters, it would be appropriate for the trial court to expeditiously consider the application for temporary injunction, more so, when the defendants have already appeared in the suit and filed their vakalatnama,” the Court said.
“Issue notice to the opposite party no 2 both ways. The petitioner shall serve and file an affidavit within three weeks. Till the next date of listing status quo as it exists today shall be maintained by the parties to the suit.”
“The Registry shall issue notice to the Presiding Officer of the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), South, Lucknow, Piyush Bharti, as to why the disciplinary proceedings be not initiated against him for not even caring to sign the order sheet,” the order reads.
The Court has fixed the next hearing of the petition on March 28, 2022.