Binod Kumar Roy, R.P.Misra, JJ. - (1.) In O.S. No. 177 of 1999. M/s. Mahavir Cement v. U.P.P.C., the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bareilly, on 10.9.1999 passed an order to put up the petition-50 Ga (filed for hearing the petition-6 Ga) for its hearing on the date fixed Inviting objection to be filed in the meantime. Respondent No. 3 filed Civil Revision Ho. 155 of 1999 against the order aforesaid which was disposed of by the order impugned by the incharge District Judge, Bareilly, as contained in Annexure-5 behind the back of the writ petitioner directing the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bareilly, to decide positively the application 6C on the date fixed before passing any order In the suit and further directing the writ petitioner not to take possession over the factory till disposal of the said application. The petitioner assails validity of this order before us invoking Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) Three fold contentions have been made by Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the prayers made In this writ petition : (i) Learned Incharge District Judge has committed an apparent jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order even though the order of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) did not amount any 'case decided' within the meaning of Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure and thus the impugned order is liable to be quashed on this ground alone ; (ii) Learned incharge District Judge has committed an apparent jurisdictional error in restraining the writ petitioner which was performing its statutory duties under Section 29 of the U. P. Financial Corporation Act and that too without giving any opportunity to have its say in the matter and thereby the well-settled principles of natural justice have been nakedly breached ; and (iii) The suit itself was not maintainable.
(3.) Sri A.C. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 very fairly takes up a stand that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the civil revision itself was not maintainable, besides no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner by the incharge District Judge.;