Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 406 (ALL)

Chiranuji Lal v. District Judge Pratapgarh

2015-02-26

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA

body2015
JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sharad Nandan Ojha, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2. 2. A suit for permanent prohibitory injunction was filed by one Jeet Lal (respondent no.2 herein) against one Nandi Devi in the year 2004. During pendency of the suit, Nandi Devi appears to have transferred the suit property in favour of the petitioner by means of a sale deed executed on 02.12.2006. The said sale deed was refused to be registered by the Registering Authority and the order refusing registration of the sale deed was challenged by the petitioner before the appellate authority under Section 72 of the Registration Act, which too, was dismissed. However, in terms of the order dated 11.12.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Civil Suit No. 777 of 2007 the sale deed was registered. The order dated 11.12.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Regular Suit No.777 of 2007 provided that the registration of the sale deed shall be subject to final judgement in Regular Suit No.96 of 2004. 3. During pendency of the Regular Suit No.96 of 2004, the sole defendant therein Nandi Devi died. The petitioner accordingly moved an application before the learned trial court seeking his impleadment under Order I Rule 10 of CPC read with Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC stating therein that since the sole defendant, deceased Nandi Devi had executed the sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the petitioner as such the petitioner be impleaded as a party and he may be permitted to contest the suit. The said application was allowed by the learned trial court by means of order dated 12.05.2014 against which the respondent no.2-Jeet Lal preferred a revision petition bearing No.32 of 2014 which has been allowed by the learned District Judge by means of the impugned judgment and order dated 17.11.2014. It is this judgement and order dated 17.11.2014 which has been challenged in this petition. 4. It is this judgement and order dated 17.11.2014 which has been challenged in this petition. 4. Learned District Judge has held in the impugned order dated 17.11.2014 that since the sale deed dated 02.12.2006 was executed by late Nandi Devi in violation of the injunction order dated 08.10.2004, as such the said sale deed is void and on the basis of such a document, the application for impleadment moved by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 read with Order XXII Rule 10 of CPC cannot be permitted to be allowed. 5. What is necessary to be seen is the nature of the injunction order granted by the civil court and to determine as to whether the sale deed executed on 02.12.2006 was in violation of the said injunction order or not. 6. On 08.10.2004, the learned trial court had passed an order to maintain status quo in respect of the land in suit till decision of the suit. The injunction order dated 08.10.2004 did not prohibit the parties to the suit to alienate or transfer the suit property as such, it cannot be said that the sale deed dated 02.12.2006 was in violation of the injunction order dated 08.10.2004. 7. It is further relevant to point out that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A. Nawab John and others vs V.N.Subramaniyam, reported in 2012 (93) ALR 9011 has held that the purchaser's application for impleadment where transfer takes place during pendency of the suit should normally be allowed and such an application should be considered liberally. 8. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 17.11.2014 passed by the learned District Judge, Pratapgarh in Civil Suit No. 32 of 2014, Jeet Lal vs Chiraunji Lal is hereby set-aside. 9. It is further directed that the learned trial court shall expedite the proceedings of the Regular Suit No.96 of 2004; Jeet Lal vs Nandi Devi and conclude the same within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 10. It is made clear that as far as possible the proceedings to the suit shall be continued on day to day basis. The parties to the suit shall not seek any adjournment whatsoever. 10. It is made clear that as far as possible the proceedings to the suit shall be continued on day to day basis. The parties to the suit shall not seek any adjournment whatsoever. The adjournment, if prayed for, may be granted by the learned appellate court below only in exceptional circumstances, that too, by passing a speaking order 11. There will be no order as to costs.