A District Judge does not commit any illegality or abuse of process of law or want of jurisdiction in refusing to grant an ad interim injunction during the pendency of an appeal, especially when the petitioner has made construction of a stall on public property and it has become difficult for persons who carry corpses for last ceremony.

This is a writ peti tion seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of District Judge, Ghazipur, dated 11-4-1997 as well as direct ing the District Judge to pass an order for the maintenance of status quo till the dis posal of the miscellaneous appeal which was filed before him.

2. The learned District Judge while passing the order of paper 6- Ga 2, which is impugned in this writ petition, was of the view that it was not proper to grant the interim order during the pendency of the appeal and the case was fixed for hearing on

3. The petition has interesting facts. It appears that the petitioner originally had filed Suit No. 18 of 1987 against the Super intendent of Police, Ghazipur in charge of Police Station Razagunj for restraining the defendants from interfering with his posses sion over plot No. 135/22, situated in Ghazipur, An application for ad interim in junction was also filed in the suit before the trial court. The trial Court passed an order on 2-2-1988 that the status quo on the spot was to be maintained. Against the aforesaid order, defendants filed an appeal. The ap peal was allowed on 31-8-1988 by the Addi tional Civil Judge, Ghazipur and the order dated 2-2-1988 was set aside. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner Ram Autar has come to this Court and filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17374 of 1988 against Mahadeo Koeri and 5 others through Sri S. K. Verma, Advocate. The said writ peti tion was admitted on 20-9-1988 by this Court and on the stay application, the fol lowing order was passed on the same day:

"issue notice. Till further orders of this Court, operation of the impugned order dated 31-8-1988 shall remain stayed. "

The said writ petition is still pending for disposal. In the said writ petition, the parties are Ram Autar as petitioner while Mahadeo Koeri, Kalp Nath, Deo Nath, the Superintendent of Police, Ghazipur, the Sub- Inspector, Incharge, PS. Razaganj, Ghazipur City and the Additional Civil Judge, Ghazipur are the respondents.

4. In the present writ petition (Writ Petition No. 13373 of 1997), it was alleged that firstly, the obstruction was done by the Superintendent of Police, Ghazipur but there again the Nagar Palika, respondent No. 1, tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the same plot i. e. plot No. 135/22, situate in Mauza, Ghazipur. This prompted the petitioner to file another suit against the present respondents 1 and 2 and as such the petitioner again filed 66 of 1997 in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ghazipur against the Nagar Palika parishad, Ghazipur and Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Ghazipur as well as 13 other persons, as defendants. However, the instant writ petition has been filed against the defendants 1 and 2, i. e. Nagar Palaika Parishad and its Executive Officer, only. In the writ petition, the aver ment was made that the defendants 3 to 15 had got themselves arrayed and they had supported the case of the petitioner. It was also alleged in the petition that the case of the defendants 3 to 15 was that the defen dants 1 and 2 can not cut away the Peepal trees standing on the land in dispute.

5. In the said suit No. 66 of 1997, the plaintiff-petitioner also moved an applica tion for ad interim injunction before the trial Court. The trial court by passing a very detailed order dated 9- 4-1997, rejected the application for ad interim injunction fixing 28-5-1997 for framing of issues. Immedi ately thereafter, the petitioner preferred a miscellaneous appeal before the District Judge, Ghazipur. In the appeal, an applica tion paper No. 6-Ga 2 was also filed for ad interim injunction praying that no damage would be caused on the articles standing over the disputed land. Before the lower appellate Court, it was argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant-petitioner that the land in dispute is the road-side (Patri ). The learned lower appel late Court was of the view that under such circumstances,