# Naresh Gill v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 855
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-07-06
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 14607 of 2021
- **Bench:** Manoj Misra, Dinesh Pathak
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/naresh-gill-v-union-of-india-ors-47319
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India - Art. 226 -
Mandamus - Under Article 226 Court
should not issue a direction upon an
officer of the State to ignore the order of a
civil court - a writ court must not issue
directions which has the effect to defeat a
court's
order
-
that
would
have
a
devastating effect on the sanctity of court
proceedings & would encourage people to
flout orders of the court by having an
interpretation of their choice to suit their
end (Para 7)
B. Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -
O.39 R.2A, - Disobedience of injunction
order passed in suit - so long the interim
injunction is in operation any violation of
it would justify proceeding under Order 39
Rule 2-A CPC - that subsequent order of
the appellate court holding that the civil
court held no jurisdiction would not
render the interim injunction order nonest - so long the order of the civil court
operates it is not appropriate for any party
bound by the order to violate the same by
having its own interpretation of the order
(Para 7)
Civil Suit instituted in the court of Munsif, Saran,
Chhapra, Bihar - on 06.11.2020 temporary
injunction order passed in suit restraining sale of
suit property - Under SARFAESI Act, Asset
Reconstruction Company Ltd put the suit
property to auction - petitioner (highest bidder),
deposited sale consideration, sale deed was
drawn & submitted for registration before SubRegistrar, Ghaziabad - Sub-Registrar citing
injunction order refused to register the sale
deed - Held - High Court could not issue a
direction upon an officer of the State to ignore
the order of a civil court and proceed with the
registration of the sale deed in teeth of the
injunction order granted by the civil court at
Chhapra, State of Bihar.
Dismissed. (E-4)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

8 All. Naresh Gill Vs. Union of India & Ors.
855
No further right to the ration card-holder is
vested by the legislature. No additional
right
to
the
ration
card
holder
or
complainant can be granted by the courts.

29. The pleadings in the writ petition do
not state that the petitioner is a ration card
holder. The petitioner as a complainant does
not have the locus standi to file the instant
writ petition.

30. In wake of the preceding discussion,
the writ petition is not maintainable at the
instance of the petitioner and he has no right
to seek cancellation of the licence of the fair
price shop dealer.

31. The writ petition is dismissed.
----------
(2021)08ILR A855
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ MISRA, J.
THE HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.

Writ C No. 14607 of 2021

Naresh Gill ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rohit Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Sri Ram N. Kaushik

A. Constitution of India - Art. 226 -
Mandamus - Under Article 226 Court
should not issue a direction upon an
officer of the State to ignore the order of a
civil court - a writ court must not issue
directions which has the effect to defeat a
court's
order
-
that
would
have
a
devastating effect on the sanctity of court
proceedings & would encourage people to
flout orders of the court by having an
interpretation of their choice to suit their
end (Para 7)
B. Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -
O.39 R.2A, - Disobedience of injunction
order passed in suit - so long the interim
injunction is in operation any violation of
it would justify proceeding under Order 39
Rule 2-A CPC - that subsequent order of
the appellate court holding that the civil
court held no jurisdiction would not
render the interim injunction order nonest - so long the order of the civil court
operates it is not appropriate for any party
bound by the order to violate the same by
having its own interpretation of the order
(Para 7)
Civil Suit instituted in the court of Munsif, Saran,
Chhapra, Bihar - on 06.11.2020 temporary
injunction order passed in suit restraining sale of
suit property - Under SARFAESI Act, Asset
Reconstruction Company Ltd put the suit
property to auction - petitioner (highest bidder),
deposited sale consideration, sale deed was
drawn & submitted for registration before SubRegistrar, Ghaziabad - Sub-Registrar citing
injunction order refused to register the sale
deed - Held - High Court could not issue a
direction upon an officer of the State to ignore
the order of a civil court and proceed with the
registration of the sale deed in teeth of the
injunction order granted by the civil court at
Chhapra, State of Bihar.
Dismissed. (E-4)

List of Cases cited:
1. Surjit Singh Vs Harbans Singh, (1995) 6 SCC
50

2. Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla & anr. Vs Hind
Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. & ors. (1997) 3 SCC
443

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Misra, J.
&
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak, J.)
856 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. Heard Sri Rohit Kumar Singh for
the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for
the respondents 1, 2 and 3; and Sri Ram N.
Kaushik for the respondent no.4.

2. According to the petitioner, by
taking recourse to the provisions of the
Securitisation
and
Reconstruction
of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short
SARFAESI Act), the Asset Reconstruction
Company (India) Limited (the fourth
respondent) put the land and building
located at plot No.223, Khata No.152,
Village Abupur, Murad Nagar, DelhiMeerut Road, Ghaziabad to auction. The
petitioner
being
the
highest
bidder,
deposited
the
sale
consideration
of
Rs.4,30,00,000/- to the credit of the fourth
respondent. Pursuant to which, a sale deed
was drawn and submitted for registration in
the office of the third respondent (SubRegistrar, Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad).
The third respondent, however, by citing an
order of injunction passed by a Court at
District Chhapra, State of Bihar, refused to
register the sale deed.

3. The prayer in this petition is to
command the third respondent to register
the sale deed and give effect to the
transaction.

4. The contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that though
there is an order of injunction passed by the
Court at Chhapra, State of Bihar, in respect
of property located in the State of Uttar
Pradesh,
but
that
order
is
without
jurisdiction. Otherwise also, the suit in
which injunction order has been passed is
barred by Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act
and, therefore the order of injunction is
void and is liable to be ignored. It is thus
claimed that the Sub-Registrar should
ignore the order and proceed with the
registration of the sale deed.

5. Sri Ram N. Kaushik, who appears
for respondent no.4, supports the stand of
the writ petitioner. However, the learned
standing counsel, who represents the state
respondents, submits that so long the
injunction order lasts the third respondent,
who is a party in the suit instituted at
Chhapra, is bound by the order and would
not be justified to ignore the same and
suffer
the
consequences
of
wilful
disobedience of court's order.

6.

Having
noticed
the
rival
submissions, we proceed to peruse the
record. A perusal of the record would
reflect that one Shiv Chaudhary instituted a
Suit No.529 of 2020 in the court of Munsif-
First, Saran, Chhapra impleading (a)
Rajendra Singh; (b) Asset Reconstruction
Company
(India
Ltd.)
(the
fourth
respondent herein); and (c) Sub-Registrar,
Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad (third
respondent herein) as defendants. The suit
property is plot No.223 at Village Abupur,
Tehsil Modinagar, District Ghaziabad. The
prayer in the suit is to restrain the
defendants from creating third party rights
over the suit property. The basis of the suit
is some Memorandum of Understanding.
From the document appended as Annexure
No.5 to the petition it appears that on
06.11.2020 a temporary injunction order
has been passed in that suit restraining sale.

7. Upon consideration of the rival
submissions and perusal of the record the
issue that falls for our consideration is,
whether in exercise of our discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India we should issue a
direction upon an officer of the State to
ignore the order of a civil court and
8 All. Naresh Gill Vs. Union of India & Ors.
857
proceed with the registration of the deed.
The answer to it would be NO. The reason
for it is that a writ court must not issue
directions which has the effect to defeat a
court's order because that would have a
devastating effect on the sanctity of court
proceedings and would encourage people to
flout orders of the court by having an
interpretation of their choice to suit their
end. Such a direction, as prayed for by the
petitioner, would not only defeat the ends
of justice but would go against the
prevalent public policy. In this context, we
may refer to a decision of the Apex Court
in Surjit Singh V. Harbans Singh, (1995)
6 SCC 50, where on the basis of a sale
made
in
defiance
of
court's
order
impleadment was sought. The Apex Court
was required to decide whether such sale
could form basis for seeking impleadment,
or it be treated as void. Rejecting prayer for
impleadment on the strength of such sale,
the Apex Court observed: "..If we were to
let it go as such, it would defeat the ends of
justice and the prevalent public policy.
When the Court intends a particular state
of affairs to exist while it is in seisin of a
lis, that state of affairs is not only required
to be maintained, but it is presumed to exist
till the court orders otherwise. The Court,
in these circumstances has the duty, as also
the
right,
to
treat
the
alienation/
assignment as having not taken place at all
for its purposes." Similarly, in Tayabbhai
M. Bagasarwalla & another Versus Hind
Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. and others,
(1997) 3 SCC 443, one of the issues that
came for consideration before the Apex
Court was whether a defendant would be
liable to be punished under Order 39 Rule
2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(''CPC") for violating an order of injunction
passed in a suit which was subsequently
found to be out of the jurisdiction of the
court that passed the injunction order. The
facts of that case were that a preliminary
objection as to the jurisdiction of the civil
court was taken. The civil court without
first addressing the preliminary objection
proceeded to grant interim injunction. The
interim injunction was not complied by the
defendant. Later, the preliminary objection
was rejected and the interim injunction was
made absolute. The defendant took the
matter
in
appeal
questioning
the
jurisdiction of civil court. Ultimately, it was
held that the civil court had no jurisdiction.
In that background the issue that arose was
as to what would be the consequence of
non-compliance of the interim inunction so
long it was in operation and whether there
could be lawful proceeding under Order 39
Rule 2-A CPC against the defendant for its
violation. The Apex Court held that so long
the interim injunction was in operation any
violation of it would justify proceeding
under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC and that
subsequent order of the appellate court
holding that the civil court held no
jurisdiction would not render the interim
injunction
order
non-est.
The
legal
principle deducible from the decision
noticed above is that so long the order of
the court operates it is not appropriate for
any party bound by the order to violate the
same by having its own interpretation of
the order. For all the reasons stated above,
we are of the firm view that it would not be
proper on our part, particularly, when we
do not have power of superintendence over
the civil court at Chhapra, (State of Bihar),
to direct the third respondent to register the
sale deed in the teeth of the injunction
order granted by the civil court at Chhapra,
State of Bihar.

8. We may hasten to clarify that
where
the
court,
whose
order
is
questionable, falls within the power of
superintendence of the writ court, that writ
858 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
court
exercising
its
power
of
superintendence over that subordinate court
may not only set aside the order but may
issue such directions as may be justified in
law. But, here, we do not have the power of
superintendence over the Court at Chhapra
which falls in the State of Bihar therefore,
even if we find substance in the submission
of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the suit as framed is barred by the
provisions of Section 34 of the SARFAESI
Act, it would not be appropriate on our part
to comment on the merits of the order of
Chhapra Court and declare it void more so
when the person who instituted the suit is
not party in this writ petition. We,
therefore, decline the prayer of the writ
petitioner and dispose off this petition by
giving liberty to the petitioner as well as
the respondents 3 and 4 to take recourse to
such other appropriate legal remedy as may
be advised to them.
----------

(2021)08ILR A858
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ MISRA, J.
THE HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.

Writ C No. 14619 of 2021

Scholar's Education Trust of India
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Authorized Officer, Bank of India & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sarveshwari Prasad

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri R.V. Pandey, Sri Sanjeev Singh

SARFAESI Act, 2002 - Section 17 - During
the pendency of SARFAESI proceedings,
secured asset was put for auction/sale -
High court directed that the auction
scheduled to be held on 16.03.2021 shall
remain stayed till the case is finally
decided DRAT - despite injunction order
auction proceeded 16.03.2021 - petitioner
was the highest bidder - later upon status
of the auction marked as cancelled on
account
of
stay
-
Subsequently,
Securitisation
Application
dismissed
-
petitioner
prayed
for
quashing
the
cancellation status of the auction & for
direction to hand over the possession of
the auctioned property to the petitioner -
Held - auction took place when there was
restraint order in operation therefore,
according recognition to such an unlawful
act would defeat the ends of justice and
the prevalent public policy - prayer to
quash the cancellation status of the
auction and confirming the auction cannot
be accepted

Disposed off. (E-4)

List of Cases cited:
1. Surjit Singh & ors. Vs Harbans Singh & ors.
(1995) 6 SCC 50

2. Jehal Tanti & ors. Vs Nageshwar Singh (2013)
14 SCC 689

3. Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd. & ors. Vs
Toshi Apartments Pvt Ltd. (2012) 8 SCC 384

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Misra, J.
&
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sarveshwari Prasad for
the petitioner; Sri Sanjeev Singh for the
respondent no.1; learned Standing Counsel
for respondent no.2; and perused the
record.

2.

A
proceeding
under
the
Securitisation
and
Reconstruction
of