Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1519 (ALL)

Suneel Kumar v. District Judge, Lucknow

2015-06-10

RAKESH SRIVASTAVA

body2015
JUDGMENT Rakesh Srivastava, J. Heard Sri Aditya Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notices to the opposite party nos.3 to 18 are dispensed with. 3. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner and respondents nos.3 to 18 are co-owners (Sahkhatedars) of land Khasra Nos. 629, 680, 596, 692, 767, 709 Kha & 681 situated at Village Mal, Pargana and Tehsil Malihabad, Lucknow and name of all of them are entered as Bhumidhar with transferable rights in revenue records. The petitioner and respondent nos.3 to 18 are owner in possession of said land. The property in dispute has not been partitioned and no demarcation of the same has taken place amongst the co-owners till date. On coming to know that some of the respondents were going to execute sale deed of the land in dispute, the petitioner filed R.S. No.659 of 2015, Sunil Kumar Vs. Sita Ram & Ors. for permanent injunction against respondent nos.3 to 18. Along with an application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC r/w Section 151 CPC respondent Nos.3, 4, 6 to 18 had put in appearance through caveat. On 22.05.2015, the learned Civil Judge, Hawali (Jr. Div.) Lucknow issued notices to respondent no.3 and 16 fixing 3rd July, 2015. The petitioner apprehended that taking advantage of the summer vacations the respondent may sell the property in dispute, as such, the petitioner moved an application under Order 151 CPC for direction to the parties to maintain status quo. The application under order 151 CPC was rejected by the learned Civil Judge. 4. On 24.05.2015, the petitioner came to know that respondent no.16 had sold Khasra Nos. 709 Kha, 629, 680, 596, 692, 767. On inspection in the office of Sub Registrar, Malihabad it transpired that respondent no. 16 had executed the sale deed in favour of respondent nos.17 & 18. Immediately on 28.05.2015 the petitioner moved an application for amendment in the plaint. The respondent nos. 17 & 18 were impleaded as defendant nos.15 & 16 and a prayer for cancellation of sale deed executed by the respondent no. 16 was also incorporated. The amendment application was allowed by the learned Civil Judge on 28.05.2015. 5. In view of the changed circumstances, the petitioner moved another application under Section 151 CPC for restraining the opposite party nos. 16 was also incorporated. The amendment application was allowed by the learned Civil Judge on 28.05.2015. 5. In view of the changed circumstances, the petitioner moved another application under Section 151 CPC for restraining the opposite party nos. 3 to 18 from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner and also for restraining them from transferring the land in dispute. On 28.05.2015 the learned Civil Judge rejected the application moved by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC on the ground that the name of the petitioner did not find mention in the Khatauni and that the purchasers had not been impleaded in the suit. Being aggrieved by the order dated 28.05.2015 the petitioner preferred a revision before learned District Judge, Lucknow. On 30.05.2001, the learned District Judge admitted the revision and fixed 18th July, 2015 for disposal. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the finding recorded by the learned Civil Judge on 28.05.2015 is contrary to the evidence on record. 7. The order dated 28.05.2015 passed in Regular Suit No.659 of 2015, and the order dated 30.05.2015 passed by learned District Judge in Civil Revision No.Nil of 2015 are under challenge in the present writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in case application under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 CPC is not decided, the property in dispute may be alienated by the defendants and in that eventuality the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury. He has submitted that the next date fixed in Civil Revision No.659 of 2015 is 18th July, 2015. 9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the District Judge, Lucknow is directed to dispose of the Civil Revision No.NIL of 2015 (Suneel Kumar v. Sita Ram and others) expeditiously, say within the maximum period of two months from 18.7.2015. Till the disposal of the Civil Revision the parties to the suit shall maintain status quo, as it exists today, and shall not create any third party right in the property in dispute. It is made clear that the District Judge, Lucknow shall not be influenced, in any manner, by any observation made in this order. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has given undertaking that the petitioner shall not seek any adjournment in the Civil Revision pending before the learned District Judge, Lucknow. It is made clear that the District Judge, Lucknow shall not be influenced, in any manner, by any observation made in this order. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has given undertaking that the petitioner shall not seek any adjournment in the Civil Revision pending before the learned District Judge, Lucknow. In case of any violation of any said undertaking, the petitioner shall not be entitled of the benefit of the stay order. 11. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of.