Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 343 (PAT)

Ram Bilash Prasad Sinha v. Gujari Devi

2005-03-22

R.N.PRASAD

body2005
Judgment 1. The case was listed under the heading For orders for hearing on the petition filed by the opposite party for vacating the order of stay granted on 16.12.2004. Counsel for the parties stated that instead of hearing the petition for vacating the stay the revision petition itself be disposed of at this stage. Thus, the Court heard the parties for the purpose of disposing of the civil revision petition itself. 2. The revision has been filed against the order dated 14.10.2004 passed by Subordinate Judge VII, Nalanda in Title Suit No. 281/82 whereby the petition filed by the defendant under Section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act for cancellation of the deed of sale in favour of the plaintiff has been disposed of and the operation of the sale deed has been stayed till further order. 3. The relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioners filed the above mentioned suit for specific performance of contract against the defendant-opposite party. The suit was dismissed against which the petitioners filed Title Appeal. The Title Appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed. The defendant-opposite party challenged the judgment and decree of the appellate Court, however, the same was affirmed upto the Apex Court. Steps were taken for execution of the sale deed pursuant to the decree and it is said that the sale deed was executed. 4. It appears from the order impugned that the records of the case were seized by the Hon ble Inspecting Judge of the High Court who directed to keep the same under sealed cover which is evident from the ordersheet dated 18.3.1994. There is nothing on the record to show how the record was produced before the court below and sale deed was executed as there is no document to show that the Hon ble Inspeting Judge has passed any order to release the record. It also appears from the order dated 18.3.1994 that when the record was called for, the Record Keeper reported that the record has been kept in sealed cover under the order of the Hon ble Inspecting Judge and it can be sent to the Court only after receipt of the order of the Hon ble Inspecting Judge and as such it is the mistry how the record was received in the Court on 26.6.1995. The Court with effect from 16.6.1995 to 27.11.1995 proceeded with the case ex-parte and also without fixing any date and the sale deed was executed. It was stated by the counsel for the other side also that it appeared from the order sheets dated 18.3.1994, 26.6.1995, 15.7.1995, 3.8.1995, 25.8.1995, 4.9.1995, 11.9.1995, 26.9.1995, 27.9.1995, 29.9.1995, 2.11.1995 and 27.11.1995 that there was no signature of the Presiding Officer nor the aforesaid dates had been mentioned in the diary and as such it was argued by the counsel that in those circumstances, the Presiding Judge had no jurisdiction to pass order in view of the order of the Hon ble Inspecting Judge, 5. The Court below or consideration has recorded a finding that records were kept under sealed cover under the order of the Hon ble Inspecting Judge and there is nothing on the record to show as to how the record was sent from the record room to the Court for further proceeding and it appears that fraudulently further action has been taken without any order of the Hon ble Inspecting Judge. The Court in these circumstances, issued notice to the Office Clerk to explain the situation/entire matters and in exercise of powers under Section 151 CPC stayed the operation of the sale deed till further orders. 6. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act the Court has no jurisdiction to stay the operation of the sale deed. On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party submitted that the court below itself has recorded a finding that forgey has been committed in execution of the sale deed. 7. On consideration of the submissions made by the counsel for the parties this much is obvious that the court below has recorded a finding that forgery has been committed in execution of the sale deed and the court has also issued notice to the office clerk to explain the position and till further order the operation of the sale deed has been stayed. It is also evident from the material on record that in such a situation, the Court has exercised its jurisdiction under Section 51 CPC and passed the order to meet the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. 8. It is also evident from the material on record that in such a situation, the Court has exercised its jurisdiction under Section 51 CPC and passed the order to meet the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. 8. Thus, on consideration, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I find nothing wrong in the order impugned. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.