Saeed-Uz-Zaman Siddiqi, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the records.
(2.) This writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to issue writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the proceedings of Regular Suit No. 68/2012, Mohammad Ahmad v. Khan Mohammad & Others pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Kaiserganj, District Bahraich, on the ground that the writ petition No. 6721 of 2011 was filed byh Gaon Sabha for taking action against the persons who have obtained unauthorized possession over Gaon Sabha land in which the Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3 were parties, in which certain directions were issued on 12.07.2011, contained in Annexure No. 1. In view of the directions passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the Gaon Sabha made an application to the District Magistrate, Bahraich for taking action against Opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 under Section 122B U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. there are no allegations that all the plaintiffs of the Regular Suit were parties to the writ petition, and, as such, they are not bound by the orders of the Division Bench of this court, nor there are any allegations that the plaintiffs have filed the suit before the learned Trial Court without disclosing any cause of action. Para 2 of the plaint says that the disputed land is the part of his house and Sahan and the then Pradhan has granted lease of land lying in Plot No. 649 on 20.01.1989. The present Pradhan is from his opposite camp and, as such, he is inimical with the plaintiff.
(3.) My attention was drawn towards law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Anand Swarup Chaudhary v. Small Causes Court, Faizabad and Ors., reported in 2011 (29) LCD 1684 : 2011 (2) ARC 886 , in which it was held:- "It also cannot be overlooked that if the petitioners are required to get an answer from the Trial Court to such an issue about maintainability of the suit, where the Trial Court would either reject the plaint or otherwise would proceed to hear the matter not being satisfied with the aforesaid plea raised, but in either case, the orders passed are bound to be challenged in superior forums by the aggrieved person, where again it is not known as to how much time it will take in getting the issue finally decided. Litigation has to be expedited and there has to be an end to all such proceedings. The High Court would not desist itself in interfering in a matter like the present one, nor for the sake of arguments that the matter should have been dealt with before the learned Trial Court first. If the High Court is satisfied that the plaintiffs do not disclose any cause of action and there cannot be finding with respect to the claim of the plaintiffs, namely, the present opposite parties in the suits filed by them and that legally they cannot get any share by any stretch of imagination on their own pleading in their suits, it has the power to quash all proceedings in the pending suits in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.";