me Appeauclvumo gg wo L gPELLANT j Smt N W; o Shn al Krishna Agrawal Aged about 35 yaars, _ , I Occupatwn— Busmess, Rf o 24 Doo 1- Colcny, Rmpur (C G) thrau _ _’ ofAttorney Holder Shn Santos Agra sgo sum}? D Agarwal Rxo 24 Doongajl Ciolony, Raapur (C G) The Mumclpal Corporatmn, Ralpur, through 1ts Comm1 ‘ i= i, M os,- ng gh _ a1 . . H5: J XI—HC—78 MW, Wm,W u" b4 L 0’1 ,‘o& (r) . m'Q~a~PO>gég QCOQ Wm ¢~o0o0~o¢oo¢oo‘oooooo mg 200 Q mm(W) WWW ‘ WWW§WW 1 WWW .mmwm §7 31%;; . my 2‘3 §Q.2?‘€E€y S'a’i Gamam E’maduri wifh Shri Rageev Shrivasiava, learned counae} (3‘3. far ihe amDeHant. Shri HB. Agrawai, ieamed Sr: caunsel wi‘th 5M Manish Agrawai. 'Coumei for me rewondeni. r4eard‘ i 2. The appe1§ant has; preferrec ihis M§s¢eilaneous Appeai under Gr ‘ier 43 Ewe m”) of the Code of Civii Procedure against {he order daied 14-7- 2006 learned 10m Adciitional DiStrict passed by DiStrict Judge, Fast Track. Court. Raipm’ in MJAC. No, 30;?008 by \A 'nich whiie conSidering ihe appiicaiian of L: ‘Ihe under Qrder Segtisn appe§1ani 3Q iles’ 1 and 2 read wiih 151 0f -C‘P.C., ihe $ame has been dimnissed an the grcund iha‘i the above app§ication i$ no’i maintainable in \ iew ofihe fac": thai m CM? suit has been fiied by ihe appeHen‘: and omy applicatien under Oreier 39 Rwes 1 and. 2 reari wirh Section 151 of ERG. has been fired ane as per ihe orders 0f ine High Ccun: dated 49—7—2006, 7 days time was given to the eppeiiani‘ and the Ccurr was nor comeeren’r ‘ o give further time i0 “the appeiiant. With r \ X P.T.O. XI-HC-78 mm,m,W . MAU).NO.%¢g/éé .u...” w 200 WW(W) oo‘..o‘o..o.. WWW -l/ .these observaiions, the appli main‘taina’oie and the proceedmgs WWEWW é:wf%n3n%31 3. Learned counsel for the ap was fiied by ‘Lhe appeikant which and ‘ihe same was disposed 0 obset’vation that the dismuied fa me“ .JLJ same cannot be sewed in'wrii j‘lurisdiciion as they {equire recording of evidence. The writ petition was d so advbed, ihe petitioner may a petition, the time of 7 days from the mate 0i eaeeimg of the order was approach the civii must and in respondents were restrained from a; Learneo’ counsel for the mt. Kumari Bai 8x Anr. etc. ~v- State of Chha’i‘tisqarh & Am. eic‘ reposie appropriate eases, the civii couite emergent circumstances and ea! their 3nhereni'po’wers. He re?e;'re{ l l l r. 1‘.O. :ation has been diemissed as net have beer: disposee 6f. peiiani submEs ihai iniiiaéiy a Wm ne'tition was regietered a5 WP. Na. 2735/2006 f Vide order daied 10-7-2006 with an are invohzed in the mafter and ihe grievances and white disposing o' L Division Egeneh of this Court in S appeiiant referring the judgment of the i “J in AIR 2006 CG. 52 contends that in ate competent to grant relief under the i pass orders of injunction by invoking to and read the judgment in the matter ismisseci‘with further observation that if pproac'n civii court for redressai of her aiiowed to the appeiiant to enabie her to the meanwhile, i.e. within 7 clays, the undertaking any demoiition proceeding. XI—HC—78 HW,W,W . M‘Q‘CCJ ND‘ gég Qoaé .yoo... 200 mwm WWW WW(W) wwwm #3— WWEWW égmm Gf‘Ram Krishna Parashar —v- Chironii La! Vaishva and Others reported m 1:377 JLJ 184 which finds refe{ence §n the matter of $mt. Kumari Bei {supra} and coe’tents that in appropriate case, injunction can be grantee in pending proceedmgs oniy but such proceedings meed my: be a suit and such m§sceHeneous proceedings can be initiafed even by fiHng of the peti‘tisn specificalw fer me purpoge, ihough this procedure §$ to be ademed onlv in exceptionai cese's. Referrimg i‘o para 12 of ihe above judgment, i’z is in order o prevené the miscarriage of argued that it is necessary that instice or in order to preveni procedure of alrewing misceria relief shouid be new per'mieeibre . Oiherwiee in most or“ the casee refueai re register such miscerlaneeus ap aiicaiione a5 misceiianeoue CM} cases Wm defeat rhe ends of justice and the provision of statutory notice wil; r 3e r a wearaon in the hands of the Government or in the hane‘s or’ a statutory Corporation tike the Municipai Corporation or Municipal Committee é. laLo defeat the just right of a citizen and taking advantage of it and the Sovernment or the Municipal Corporation would be able to demolish a standing etructure aitogether v‘ithin the statutory period of a notice a party couici fiie a suit in a Court of law. tnly be improper but it would amount to Such an interpretation wili not an abuse of rhe procees of Ceun, the reous appiication to be med ‘fer such a prescribed by the statute before XI—HC-78 Wm‘o.:.o§o§‘;§§‘ IV‘ AQMO g Wm (WW) mammeshwaiamgt Q8/Q4. m 200 WWW WWW €W$TH§H$§¥ . 9 _Ll suffering miscarriage of iustise. h‘. emd undex' these circumeztances; i‘ i0 devi$e a procedure for the twc “the Code of Civil Procedure. it is the binding judgment in ihe afor appiicetion preferred by the ap maintainabie and. iherefore, ihe ' erroneous and the same shouid be WW§WW éawm 5. On the other hand, Shri appearing for the respondents 3L1; inere is no dispure that the appe simpiy filed rhe appiication Linda Section 151 of CFC. and prayé respondents. Referring i0 ii‘re pré C.P.C., rt is argued rhat applicatior Cr can be fiied oniy in a pending c cf Rule 2 of Qrder 39 of SRO l' has not committed any illegality i: cannot be permitted by the Court of law has been held rhar the Courts are free purposes mentioned in EBection 151 of argued that the Court betow overlooking ementioned oases, has dismissed the peliant holding the same to be not 'inding of the Court is on the face of it aset aside. +8. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsei porting the impugned order submits that iiant did not fiie any oivii suit and she r Order 39 Ft‘uies 1 and 2 read with d for temporary injunction against the )Visions of Order 39 Ruie 1 and 2 of t under Order 39 Rules ”i and 2 of {3.13. E1. vii suit as is evident from a bear rea ing is further argued that the Court below by the appe lent was not maintain y holding that the appiioation preferred this appeal. He further argued tha i f‘P.T.0. hie and no interference is sailed for in though the statutory period mentioned XI—HC—78 a W, m,W Wmi.‘.‘...‘.o.;6....Soo.‘ 1W VACC) Mo ‘Bég Oé 200 1 i mm (W) W$IW WW#WW WWW mmwm -5_ ‘ éaat‘atrw in Section 401 of the Municipai Corporation Act ha$ aiveady lapsed after igsuance of noiice by the appei!a1t, even iher: the appeuant has not cared t0 We anv sivi! suit before the .riai Court and thas ‘che conduct cf tm appeiiant i3 not boz7afide and that shduid aiso be taken note of, 6. 1 have heard the !eamed ca’unse§ for the parties. 1 have perused the impugned order as aleo the oiher’ documents annexed with this; applicaiion. i have‘gone'ihrough ihe judgment cited by the appeiient‘ During the course of the argument, iearned counsei for the responden’i does no? dispui‘e the ratio adopted in the above cried judgments. Hi3 only obg‘ection with respect ’co the appiicaiion of ihe judgments in the present eet of fame is that though the apt iication under Section ”151 of C.P.C. was % rnaintainabie at the instance of appeiiant but Since the appetient has fited an eopiioetton undet Order 39 Rutes t and 2 read with Section 151 of > C.F’.CA, the Same should not be entertained by the Court below and the Court below has rightly rejected the application as not mainteineble in the abeenoe of pendenoy of any suit. 7. The objection taken by the respondent regarding appiioation of the ratio of law laid down in the jud ynent of Ramakrishna Parashar (supra) which finds reference in the judhmerit in Srnt. Kumeri Bai (supra) is too X i ‘ P.T.O. x« 8. ln the reeuit, the instant a passed by the learned Additiona the case is remanded back to the ’red by the appetlant en manta after eto uecide nl the apbtication prefe D. i zppeai is ailowed. The impugned order District Judge, Raipur is set aside and teamed Additionai District Judge. Raipur XI-HC—78 WW, Wm,W mm MA‘.<C.>.;.».£¢.‘.?%%3 ''.'.'.. 40% 200 Wmm mmwW) WW§WW WWW Wwm : %:3T%m3n%31 . technicai. The rationale behind he above ciied judgments are that in an emergeni siiuation Where the pasty appreheiidimg an imminent irrepeiabie injury is not preciuded fmm fiiing proceedings before the Court of iaw and if any proceeding is initiated by such party, ihe law coun‘s are bound to give appropriate remedies under ihe Code of Civil Procedure by regierering misoeilaneous case and in exoeptionai oasee, prohibitory remporaw injunction can be» passed in favour of such. parry whiie exercising inherent jurisdiction under Seoiion 151 of CFC. This appiication has been fiied by the appeliant under (Meier 39 Ruiee 1 and 2 reed with $ection 151 of ORG. and, therefore, i am of the considered view that the judgmente cited by the apbeliant in support of this appee! were squareiy applicable and the Court below was duty bound to entertain the same and decide the applicaton preferred by the appeltant on merits r 3 and ease appropriate orders andl the findings of the Court below that the eppticatton was not maintaineble in the absence of pendency of eutt before hém is contrary to the spiri. of the above judgments XI—HC—78 (2 0 j ( mqqaqygi“ gii§E ”it . q m-{m am $48 Qooe WW0.;QOOQ¢.O#‘Q¢.O‘Q¢¢‘ '\ 200 WW(W)