Chattisgarh High Court
Shree Kishun Jaiswal vs Lalan Prasad Jaiswal on 3 November, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 592 of 2022
Shree Kishun Jaiswal S/o Ganauri Aged About 42 Years R/o Village
Chandi, Tehsil And Police Station Wadrafnagar, District- Balrampur-
Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
Lalan Prasad Jaiswal S/o Late Narvedeshwar Prasad Jaiswal Aged About
61 Years R/o Village Chandi, Tehsil And Police Station Wadrafnagar,
District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Shishir Dixit, Advocate.
For Respondent : Ms. Priyanka Mehta, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
03.11.2022
Heard Mr. Shishir Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard
Ms. Priyanaka Mehta, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent.
2. This appeal is preferred against an interim order dated 06.08.2021
passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 3206 of 2021.
3. The appeal is accompanied by an application of condonation of delay
of 164 days. An objection is filed to the application of condonation of delay.
4. The present appellant had filed an application for vacation of the said
interim order on 08.10.2021. Though the writ petition was listed on
22.03.2022, 11.04.2022, 13.07.2022, 10.08.2022 and 16.09.2022, the
application for vacating the interim order was not taken up.
5. By the order dated 16.09.2022, on the other hand, considering that
pleadings have been completed, the writ petition was directed to be listed
for final hearing in the week commencing from 07.11.2022. The interim
order passed earlier was continued till the next date of hearing.
6. It is at that juncture the appellant preferred the appeal because of non
consideration of his prayer for vacating the interim order and directing
listing of the case for final hearing.
7. Mr. Dixit submits that direction to list the matter for final hearing
means the case will be listed in part-II, where the sequence by the year of
institution of the case is followed and in that eventuality, there is no chance
of hearing of the petition in the near future. He submits that there is an
obligation of the Court to consider and dispose of an application for
modification, vacation and/or alteration of an interim order. He has also
drawn the attention of the Court to Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India
in this context.
8. In the background of the above, it is submitted by him that because of
non consideration of the application for vacating the interim order, the
appellant was compelled to approach this Court in writ appeal, challenging
the interim order.
9. On due consideration, we condone the delay in preferring the appeal.
10. Accordingly, I.A. No. 01 of 2022 stands disposed of.
11. Ms. Mehta submits that though the delay is condoned, the appeal is
not maintainable in view of the proviso contained in Section 2(1) of the
Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006, which
provides that no appeal shall lie against an interlocutory order.
12. We find substance in the argument of Ms. Mehta that this appeal,
stricto sensu, is not maintainable, and therefore, this Court will not go into
the merits of the case.
13. Considering the sequence of events, as noted herein above, we,
however, feel that the interest of justice will be sub-served, if a direction is
issued to list the case in part-I hearing list on 10.11.2022 before the
appropriate Bench having roster for consideration and disposal of the
application for vacating interim order. Ordered accordingly.
14. The writ appeal stands disposed of with the above observation and
directions.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Sanjay Agrawal)
Chief Justice Judge
Hem
