- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. Against the order dated 21-2-1998 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 53 of 1996 by the Additional District Judge, Moradabad, the present writ peti tion has been filed.
(2.) MR. V M. Zaidi, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the appellate court is perverse and cannot be sustained since it had over looked the materials placed before it. Secondly, he contends that by virtue of interim order, final relief has been granted which could not be granted at the initial stage. Mr, M. C. Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand took a preliminary objection that in view of decision in the case of Ganga Saran v. Civil Judge, Hapur, A. I. R. 1991 Allahabad 114, this writ petition is not maintainable. Relying on paragraph 11 of the said decision, Mr. Zaidi contended that since he is not claiming any relief against any private individual but has challenged the order passed by the judicial officer, the, c fore, the writ of certiorari is very much maintainable.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY, the suit is one for in junction between two private individuals. Both of them have no statutory obligations against each other. In the case of Ganga Saran it has been laid down that in case of refusal to grant injunction or refusal to vacate injunction is is fact a grant of man damus, therefore, order passed in such a suit, would not be amenable to writ juris diction. The distinction that was sought to be made by Mr. Zaidi is that even if such writ is not available against private in dividual, but writ of certiorari is very much available since he had challenged the order passed by judicial officer which is to be quashed by a writ of certiorari. Such a distinction, however, in my view appears to be misconceived. The dis pute is between two private individual. The relief that has been sought is also between two private individuals. In no way the relief would affect the judicial officer. The judicial officer is not a party to the proceedings. There is no lies in between the parties and the judiciary. Then again, writ lies against the State as defined in Article 12 which does not include within its defini tion the judiciary.;