- (1.) : 1.The present petition has been preferred by the original defendant in Title Suit No. 12 of 2005, whereby, it has been submitted by the original defendant that though the stay was not granted, as prayed for by the respondent (original plaintiff) by the trial court vide order dated October 7, 2005 and though his appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 2006 is dismissed vide order dated July 21, 2007, the stay has been granted to the original plaintiff by self contradictory observations, made in the order, passed by the lower appellate court and hence this writ petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the original defendant.
(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel appearing for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case: .(i)It appears that the present petitioner is the original defendant in Title Suit No. 12 of 2005. The suit has been filed for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and also for grant of permanent injunction. .(ii)It also appears from the facts of the case that the respondent, who is the original plaintiff, had also preferred stay application in his Title Suit. This stay application was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated October 7, 2005. Both the sides are claiming title over the properties and both want to make construction upon the same. (iii) It appears that being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order, passed by the trial court upon the stay application, a Misc. Appeal bearing Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 2006 was preferred by original plaintiff, before the Additional District Judge, Singhbhum East at Jamshedpur, who dismissed the appeal vide order 2. dated July 21, 2007 (Annexure 2 to the memo of present petition). (iv)It appears that the appellate order is in favour of the present petitioner (original defendant) but in the last paragraph i.e. paragraph no.12 of the order it has been observed as under: "Therefore, I find and hold that there is no merit in this appeal and it fails and accordingly, dismissed. Since both sides are claiming their right, title and possession over the suit land. Thus, under the fact and circumstances, both parties are directed to maintain status -quo over the suit land till the disposal of the T.S.no. 12/05 for the ends of justice.  Thus, it appears that the lower appellate court has confirmed the order, passed by the trial court and dismissed the appeal and simultaneously he has also granted stay in favour of the original plaintiff. Two things at a time is not possible and permissible. Either appeal should be allowed and the stay should be granted or appeal should be dismissed and the order of trial court should be confirmed.
(3.) IN these set of circumstances, I hereby remand the matter to th Additional District Judge, Singhbhum East at Jamshedpur, for his fresh decision upon Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 2006. It is not clear from the impugned order whether the appeal is partly allowed or fully dismissed, looking to paragraph no.12 of the impugned order, as quoted hereinabove.;