- (1.) BY means of present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners (original plaintiffs) have challenged the order dated 20th November, 2008 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the appellate court) whereby the appellate court allowed the appeal of the respondent No.3 (original defendant) and set aside the order dated 29th September, 2008 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div), Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the trial court) in T.I. Application No. 199/08.
(2.) AT the outset it is required to be stated that though the impugned order was of the date 20.11.08, no effective hearing appeared to have taken place in this petition till 3.8.11, when the court had stayed the operation of the impugned order passed by the appellate court. It is pertinent to note that during the pendency of the appeal, the respondent No.3 was trying to raise construction of the wall on the disputed premises and, therefore, the petitioners had filed an application being No. 22734/11 seeking direction against the respondent No.3 to remove the construction raised since 25.9.10 onwards and further for restraining the respondent No.3 from raising any construction adjoining to the western wall of the temple of Shri Kalyanji towards its land and also to restore the original possession of chambers, pipelines etc. of the petitioners leading to the sewerage line in Chaura Rasta and also restraining the respondent No.3 from closing entry of the petitioners in the disputed 'Gali'. It appears that the prayers contained in the said application were not pressed into service when the court passed the order on 3.8.11, as there is no reference of the pendency of the said application in the said order. The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioners (original plaintiffs) have filed the suit against respondent No.3 (original defendant) seeking permanent injunction and mandatory injunction in respect of the disputed premises claiming their easementary right of light and air and of discharging sewerage water. The petitioners had also filed an application seeking temporary injunction for restraining defendants from raising any type of construction upon 'Gali' of 5 feet shown in red lines in the map annexed with the application and also restraining the defendants from creating any hindrances in the flow of sewerage water through the pipes laid beneath the land of said Gali. It was also prayed that the respondent No.3 i.e. the defendant be restraining from raising the construction, closing the windows and ventilators existing on the western wall of Mandir Shri Kalyanji and for mandatory injunction seeking removal of the wall recently constructed for clearance of water and waste line in the five feet 'Gali'. The said application was resisted by the defendants. The trial court had appointed one advocate as the commissioner for carrying out local inspection and the commissioner in presence of the parties, had prepared the map and the report with regard to the disputed premises. The trial court after hearing the learned counsels for the parties partly allowed the application of the petitioners, directing the defendant (respondent No.3) to maintain status-quo existing as per the report prepared by the commissioner, during the pendency of the suit, vide order dated 29.9.08. The said order was set aside by the appellate court in the appeal filed by the respondent No.3, as per the impugned order dated 28.11.08. Being aggrieved by the said order, passed by the appellate court, the petitioners have filed the present petition invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Both the learned counsels for the parties have made their submissions at length relying upon the number of documents including the maps and sale-deeds produced on record in the suit. However, this court restrains itself from dealing with the said submissions in detail as the court is of the opinion that the issues involved in the suit cannot be decided without recording the evidence that may come at the time of the trial of the suit, and that any observation made by this court may come in the way of either of the parties. Since the petitioners have also not been able to obtain any effective interim relief during the pendency of this petition for about four years, no relief at this juncture could be granted. As per the settled legal position, the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being supervisory jurisdiction should be sparingly exercised and the High Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence appreciated by the courts below. Under the circumstances, the disputes between the parties deserve to be decided by the trial court after taking into consideration the evidence that may be led by the parties. Considering the controversies involved in the suit, the interest of justice would be met if the trial court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and within six months from the date of the receipt of this order. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the present petition, the trial court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and within six months from the date of the receipt of this order of this court. It is directed that both the parties shall cooperate the trial court to decide the suit within the specified time and shall not ask for adjournment unless imperative. With the above directions, the writ petition stands dismissed. The record of the case be sent back to the trial court forthwith. ;