High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Lila Committee v. A.D.J. - WRIT - C No. 6486 of 1988  RD-AH 5128 (3 March 2006)
Court no. 31
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6486 of 1988
Ram Lila Committee Mahnagar and another
The Ist Additional District Judge and ors.
Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.
List is revised. Learned counsel for the petitioners is present. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents is not present. As it is an old matter, I am proceeding to hear in absence of the learned counsel for the respondents.
The present petition has been filed against an order dated 15.2.1988 passed by the opposite party no. 1 by which he has remanded the matter with regard to issues in the suit to be decided.
The facts of the case are that the petitioners-plaintiffs had filed a suit no. 599 of 1982 against the defendants-opposite parties for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the right of the plaintiffs from taking the Ram Janki Rath through the plot in dispute at the time of Bharat Milap and Ram Ban Gaman and further an injunction was also sought that defendants be restrained from raising any construction in it.
The suit was contested by the defendants-respondents that the land was the graveyard and the petitioners- plaintiffs have no right to raise any claim. On 9.2.1984 the trial court granted an injunction by which the defendants were restrained from using the land in dispute and from raising any construction in it during the pendency of the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants went in appeal, which was decided on 31.5.1984. In this appeal, an order was passed by which a line was ''ch' ''chh' drawn in the map and the defendants were directed to bury their dead towards the east of the said line and not towards east-west of the said line. They were restrained from raising any construction on the said land but were permitted to use an open land for namaj and fateha. The order passed in appeal dated 31.5.1984 became final as either of the parties have not challenged the same.
However the defendants disobeyed the appellate order dated 31.5.1984 and therefore the petitioners were constrained to move another application and the trial court disallowed the defendants by the order dated 31.10.1986 from doing so. The defendants then filed revision no. 355 of 1986 which was allowed by the order dated 15.2.1988 and it is against this order, the petitioners have come before this Court.
Since the order dated 13.5.1984 had not been challenged by either parties, the order dated 13.5.1984 should not have been violated and in my opinion the revisional court has wrongly allowed the revision in favour of the defendants.
Since the suit is an old one, it would be appropriate that suit itself be decided expeditiously. However parties shall remain bound by the appellate order dated 31.5.1984 and shall abide by it. The matter shall back to the trial court for disposal of the suit itself till the decision for a period of one year. The proceedings in the suit shall commence immediately upon receipt of the certified copy of this order and both parties shall appear before the trial court.
The writ petition is disposed of as above but there will be no order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.