Durgawati v. Nan Bai

RESPONDENTS Plaintiff

1. Nan Bai, D/o late Lalan Ram Rajwade, wife of Shivnarayari Rajwade, 39 years, occupation-Agriculture, Defendant

2. Shanti Bai, S/o late Lalan Ram Rajwade, aged about 46 years Both are Resident of Village Katkalo, P.S. - Darima, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG). 3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Collector, Surguja •(CG). Defendant (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hbn'ble Mr, Satjsh K. Aanihotri, J.) Preseht : • Shri AshokKumar Shukla.Advocate for th^e petitioners. Shri Sunil Tripathi, Advocatefor the Fespondent No. 1 &2. Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 3. ORALORDER (Passed on 7 day of January, 2009)

1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. 2, By this petition filed under Article 227of the Constitution 6f India, petitioners challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 29.07.05 (Annexure P/7), passed bythe llnd Additional District Judge, Ambikapur Distt. Surguja, in Misc. CivilAppealNo. 07/05 (Nan Bai Vs. Durgawati and Ofhers) whereby, thelearnedAdditionalDistrictJudgedirected the parties tomaintain status quo in mutation proceedings with regard to plaint schedule 'A' land as obtained dn 27.09.2004. .;

3. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected bythe petitioners arethat the f) *%!>• respondent No.l/plaintifffileda suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect ofthe half portion of the plaint schedule 'A' land. Respondent No.l/plaintiff, along with the suit, & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "CPC") filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 seeking an injunGtion in respect ofthe mutation proceedings before the Revenue Court in respect ofthe plaint schedule 'A'land. The petitioners/defendants opposed the application on the ground that the mutation proceedingsinitiated bythe petitiohers/defendants are on the basis of a Will executed by Lalanram in favour ofthepetitionerNo.1. Learned Civil Judge, Classl, Ambikapur, by order dated 15-2-2005 (Anhexure P/6) observed that the mutation proceedings with regard to the plaint schedule 'A' is stayed, petitibhers/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, JUdge, Ambikapur, observed that the plaint schedule 'A' learned llnd Additidnal District land is in dispute and as such the mutation proceedings cannot procfeed unless the dispute with regard to the title, ownership ofthe said land is settled bythe 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 orderdated 15-2-2005 (Annexure P/6) passed by the CivilJudge, Class I, and granted sfetos quo iri mutation proceedings with regard fo fhe plaint schedule 'A' land. Thus, this petition.

4. The contention of Shri Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, is thatthe Civil Court has no jurisdiction to stay the mutation proceedings, pendihg before the revenue aufhorities, underfhe provisions ofOrder XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 oftheCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (foFshort'C.P.C.') and the learned court below, without appreciating the facts and circumstanGe of the case in its letterand spirit, passed theimpugned order, which is against the well settled principles of law.

5. Shri Shukla further relies on decisions of Supreme Court passed in the matter of Modi Entertainment Network and Another Vs. W.S.G. CriGket Pte. A\ Ltd. and Kishore Kumar Khaitan &Anr. Vs. Praveen Kumar Singh .

6. I have heard learned counsel appearing forthe parties, perused thepleadings 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 dwnership df the land, 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 landin dispute. The judgment and order dated 15-2-2005 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Civil Judge, Class I, iswithoutany basis and as such ifthe mutation proceedings is permitted to go on, there would be unnecessary multiplication of the disputes. Therefore, is well settled that the civi] court proceedings with regard to the 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 irinpugned order. There is no irregularity, illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 29.07.05 (Annexure P/7), passed by the llnd Additipnal District Judge, Ambikapur Distt. Surguja, in Misc. CivilAppeal No. 07/05.

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

8. In Kishore KumarKhaitAi and another (supra), the dispute was with regard to grahtofinterim injunction pending suit restraining from respondents tointerfere ' 2003 AIRSCW 733 22006AIRSCW1077 . -..-LJ—_;__ *N (R iKs with the paint schedule property, wherein the order of sfatus quo was not specified, and as such it was obsen/ed that interference under Article 227 to •i'^sssss-f correct errors of jurisdictionis permissible. In the facts of the present order of status quo \s very ctear 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.

9. 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.

10.The order dated 29-7-2005 (Annexure P/7) passed by the llnd Additional District Judge, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguj'a, in Misc. Civil Appeal No.07/05, just andproper, warranting no interference. .

11.1n 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. \a)U Sd/- sat"*K^Agnih^