- (1.) THE defects are taken note of and are ignored. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on the merits of this appeal. By way of this intra-court appeal, the respondent No. 2 of CWP No. 4999/2012 seeks to question the order dated 23.08.2012 as passed by the learned Single Judge on the prayer for interim relief. The interim order passed by the learned Single Judge reads as under:- "In the meanwhile, operation and effect of order of Additional District Collector dt. 27.04.2012 Annex. 9 shall remain stayed and the respondents are restrained from dispossessing the petitioner from the subject land in question, till further orders."
(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that the writ petition as filed by the respondent No.1 herein remains totally baseless and she cannot be said to be having any right in the land in question where the patta as allegedly issued earlier to her predecessor was found to be forged. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider that disposal of the writ petition will take time and if in the meantime, the writ petitioner (respondent No.1) will raise complete construction over the land in question, it would create several complications in the matter. After having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions so made and having examined the record, we are not persuaded to consider interference in this matter. The sum and substance of the matter remains that the learned Single Judge has been exercising the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and after hearing the parties on the stay application found it just and proper to pass the interim order that until further orders, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in question. Obviously, the grant or refusal of interim relief is essentially a matter of discretion of the Court concerned. Moreover, when the extraordinary writ jurisdiction is being exercised, which itself is discretionary and equitable in nature, grant or refusal of interim relief therein is plainly a matter of discretion; and, ordinarily, such exercise of discretion does not call for interference in intra-court appeal. The order impugned appears to have been passed by the learned Single Judge in balance of equities; and it cannot be said that the exercise of discretion in this matter is against any judicial principle.
(3.) SO far the merits of the case are concerned, we would not like to make any comment for the simple reason that even otherwise the writ petition remains pending before the learned Single Judge. However, it may be observed that if there be any other submissions, the appellant is free to make the same before the learned Single Judge. Subject to the observations foregoing, this appeal stands dismissed.;