Shiv Gau-Shala vs Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad And Others
2012 Latest Caselaw 1052 ALL

Citation : 2012 Latest Caselaw 1052 ALL
Judgement Date : 30 April, 2012

Allahabad High Court

Shiv Gau-Shala vs Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad And Others on 30 April, 2012

Bench: Prakash Krishna




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 4
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20783 of 2012
 

 
Petitioner :- Shiv Gau-Shala
 
Respondent :- Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad And Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- S.K. Purwar,Hari Narayan Singh
 
Respondent Counsel :- Somveer
 

 
Hon'ble Prakash Krishna,J.

By the impugned order dated 9th April, 2012, the appellate court in appeal no. 166 of 2011 has rejected the application filed by the plaintiff-appellant who is petitioner to stay the effect and operation of the judgment and decree of the trial court during pendency of the appeal.

Suit No. 477 of 2002 was instituted by the petitioner on the basis of possessory title in respect of disputed land. During pendency of the suit, temporary injunction order was granted. However, after full fledge trial, the suit has been dismissed by the trial court. The decree has been challenged in appeal before the court below.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the pendency of the appeal, the appellate court should have granted status quo order at least. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Rama Gowda v. Varadappa Naidu AIR 2003SC 4609.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, I am not inclined to interfere in the present writ petition. Admittedly, the suit was filed on the basis of possessory title. In other words, the petitioner has not claimed any title over the property in dispute. The trial court under issue no. 3, has found that the plaintiff has encroached the roadside patri and nala and has raised unauthorized construction thereon. In view of the finding of the trial court, the appellate court has rightly refused to grant any interim relief to the petitioner. The appellate court properly exercised the discretion in the matter. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the present has been made out.

The writ petition is dismissed summarily.

However, it is provided that the appellate court shall make endevour to hear and decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year without being influenced of any of the observations made in the order.

(Prakash Krishna,J)

Order Date :- 30.4.2012

MK/