S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12769/2010 Prabhu Lal VS. Kalu Lal and Anr. Dated : 20.10.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. Anil Mehta, for the petitioner. *** By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash the impugned order dated 29th May, 2010 whereby the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Ramganjmandi in case No.50/2008 directed the petitioner to open the way within a period of seven days. 2. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully scanned the relevant material including the impugned order on record, it is noticed that on 15th September, 2008, the learned trial Court allowed the application of temporary injunction directing the petitioner not to restrain the respondent from using the disputed Rasta situated in land bearing Khasra No.62. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the learned trial Court and the learned Appellate Court vide its order dated 20th October, 2008 set aside the order dated 15th September, 2008. A writ petition came to be filed by the plaintiff impugning the order dated 20th October, 2008 wherein this Court stayed the impugned order dated 20th October, 2008 passed by the -2- Appellate Court and the respondents were directed to abide by the order of temporary injunction dated 15th September, 2008 passed by the learned trial Court for a period of four weeks. Thereafter one application was filed by the petitioner for getting this stay order vacated. On this application, this Court passed an order on 29th October, 2009 in the following terms:- “(I) Both the parties shall maintain status quo, as it is obtaining today. (II) The trial Court will complete the suit proceedings within the period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (III) Both the parties will cooperate with the trial Court to complete the suit proceedings within the period fixed above. (IV) Rights of both the parties would be governed by the order passed by the trial Court or if any appeal is preferred, then by such order. (V) The status quo order shall remain in operation only till the final decision of the suit and subsequently rights of the parties would be governed as mentioned aforesaid. (VI) If any of the party fails to cooperate with the trial Court to complete the suit proceedings, then the trial Court is directed to deal with such a party in accordance with the provisions of law, which includes even imposition of cost or other order to be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case.” -3- 3. This Court also directed the learned trial Court to dispose of the suit within a period of six months. It seems that the learned trial Court was not able to dispose of the suit within the stipulated period, but after the expiry of six months, the petitioner again closed the way and restrained the respondent-plaintiff from using the 'Rasta' in question. On application having been filed by the respondent, the learned trial Court again passed an order dated 29th May, 2010 directing the petitioner to open the way for the use of the respondent-plaintiff. It is pertinent to emphasize that prior to the order dated 29th May, 2010, the disputed Rasta was being used by the plaintiff- respondent, but there being no order with regard to extension, the petitioner understood that he was not required to abide by the terms laid down in the order dated 29th October, 2009 and he, of his own, restrained the respondent-plaintiff from using the same. Learned trial Court in its fullest wisdom, respecting the orders passed by this Court twice, again restored the original position and restrained the petitioner directing him not to prohibit the plaintiff from using the disputed 'Rasta'. There does not seem to be any perversity in the impugned order nor is it found to be contrary to the provisions of law. The impugned order -4- is found to be just and proper which to my firm opinion, warrants no intervention. 4. The writ petition being bereft of any merit, for the afore-stated reasons, deserves to be dismissed at the threshold and the same stands dismissed accordingly. 5. However, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the suit. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. Pcg item No.18