High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
R.B. Rai v. J.J. Oliver - WRIT - C No. 12198 of 2006  RD-AH 4884 (1 March 2006)
Court No. 23
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12198 of 2006
Sri R.B. Rai, Major Vs. Sri J.J. Oliver, Major
Hon'ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
This petition challenges the order dated 14.2.2006 whereby the trial court on an interim matter of temporary injunction has directed for issuing notice and had fixed a date for its disposal. The orders for the parties to meanwhile maintain status quo was also passed.
Learned counsel contends that this is the second suit of plaintiff respondent in which appointment of the petitioner as pastor of Methodist Church has been challenged. Earlier suit is also pending in which the petitioner had approached this court against such an order of injunction, which was decided vide Annexure No. 11 and the order passed by the revisional court under challenge in that writ petition, was quashed.
In fact, the dispute is that of appointment of pastor of the Methodist Church Allahabad and in that context earlier suit and subsequent suit have been filed. Learned counsel has tried to emphasise that repeated filing of the suit is nothing but misuse of process of the court and in such circumstances only, the petitioner was made to approach this court and not to take recourse to an the appellate remedy available to him under Order XLIII, Rule 1 (r) C.P.C. Learned counsel has also cited a case law of M/s Geeta Pumps Pvt. Ltd., Saharanpur Vs. District Judge, Saharanpur & others, AIR 1999 Allahabad 32, and has tried to convince the court that in the circumstances as available this court under its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India as well as Article 227 of Constitution of India, should interfere in such matters.
Obviously, the order impugned is appealable order and specific provisions are there in the Code of Civil Procedure which are equally efficacious and available to the aggrieved party to approach the appellate court. In the case law, which has been cited by the learned counsel, the circumstances were more aggravating and as many as nine suits had been filed by the plaintiff repeating the same prayer and same relief against the defendant and thus finding it to be an extremely exceptional case the court has interfered. Here the present petitioner has approached this court in such circumstances when he has better support for himself in the form of an order of this court dated 28.10.2005, which was passed in relation to temporary injunction matter of earlier suit. Therefore, the act of by-passing the appellate court and jumping to this court does not appear to be as justifiable. Immediately after the impugned order was passed on 14.2.2006, the appeal should have been preferred by the aggrieved party-petitioner the very next day before the District Judge. Therefore, I am not inclined in the present case to entertain this petition, which has been filed by the petitioner before approaching the appellate court. So far as the impugned order itself is concerned, it is a temporary order and speaks about the parties to maintain status quo. The temporary injunction application in the present case is with the prayer to restrain the defendant petitioner from calling any meeting of the pastorate conference and order of status quo passed by the trial court will at the maximum confine to that prayer and not beyond it.
With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.