High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Satya Prakash Agarwal & Others v. Ghanshyam Das Porwal & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 322 of 2006  RD-AH 7378 (5 April 2006)
SPECIAL APPEAL No.322 OF 2006
Satya Prakash Agarwal & others ...Appellants
Ghanshyam Das Porwal & others ` ...Respondents
Hon'ble Ajoy Nath Ray,C.J
Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J
We are in respectful agreement with the reasoning given and the order passed by Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh, J on 28.2.2006 inter alia because it seems to undo what had happened because of the presentation of an earlier writ petition.
The start of litigation was in 1973 by way of a suit relating to certain general bodies of certain educational institutions. Orders for injunction and receiver were passed; the suit was purportedly compromised; on an application the order for compromise was recalled. Then the writ Court interfered on the basis of an earlier writ filed in 1983 bearing No.9646. Because of interim orders passed in that writ the recall of compromise was stayed which meant that the suit stood temporarily dead because of the revival of the compromise which had been recalled. The writ Court's order went on being operative and four or five committees purportedly came into being and operated in the meantime. Ultimately, the writ of 1982 was dismissed.
The writ petitioner-respondent filed the writ for certain reliefs. All that Hon'ble Single Judge has done is that his Lordship has declared, on the basis of the orders mentioned before, that the suit has revived and along with it the interim orders of receiver and injunction.
His Lordship has given directions for expeditious disposal of the suit. The appellant submits that the Receiver, one Dr. Gyanwati Agarwal, is now 80 years old and has ousted the management committee; the impugned order has revived 33 year
old interim orders. Also that the plaintiffs were not the writ petitioners but only two parties, one of whom was only a proforma defendant. The writ petitioner-respondent submits on the other hand that although the Receiver is old, possession has been taken; salaries have been paid; and examinations are now being held.
In these circumstances, it is eminently just and proper that the writ Court send the parties back to where they belong i.e., the suit Court. Neither what we state in our order, nor what the Hon'ble Single Judge has stated in his Lordship's order, will in any manner affect the rights and contentions of the parties in the said suit or proceedings therein. We make no observations as to the effect and validity of the management committees and their action taken in the meantime. Similarly, we make no pronouncement as to whether the learned Receiver should continue or any interim order should continue or not. It will be for the suit Court to decide these things on the basis of current facts which might be brought before the Court by parties who are entitled to do so, if they want any fresh orders to be passed there.
To repeat the only purpose for our order, will be to send back to the parties to the suit Court and to undo on the basis of the second writ what was perhaps best left undone in the first place, even though the earlier writ had, in fact, been filed. Generally speaking, the writ Court should leave the suit Court alone.
The appeal is thus dismissed subject to the observations made above.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.