Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 609 (UTT)

Upendra Kumar Sharma @ Bhakt v. Keshav Dutt

2016-09-21

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Having heard learned Counsels for the revisionist as well as the Caveator, who represents respondent no. 17-Anirudh Kumar, it is evident that by means of this revision, the order dated 18.05.2016 passed by Third Additional District Judge, Haridwar in Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2001, has been challenged, whereby the application, moved under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by Mr. Upendra Kumar Sharma and Mukesh Kumar (third parties), was rejected, which sought their impleadment as the necessary parties at the appellate stage, for the reasons as have been disclosed in the impugned order. 2. It would not be out of place to look into the backdrop of the whole controversy which can be manifested right from the execution of the sale deed on 7.12.1979 by Shankar Dutt, Keshav Dutt and Brahm Dutt in favour of Ms. Kusum Kumari and Ms. Ram Kumari, whose legal heirs are the revisionists, as claimed. 3. That sale deed related to Khasra Nos. 1272/1 and 1273 having the area 7 Biswa and 13 Biswa respectively situated in Village Jwalapur, Haridwar. 4. Original Suit No. 76 of 1991 was initiated by Anirudh Kumar and Anil Kumar seeking their partition and possession over Khasra No. 1601 having area 17 Biswas situated in the same village Jwalapur, Mohalla Pandey Wala and the boundaries of such property were as under:- East Thoroughfare to Idgah West Rainy drain North Property temple South Kuchha Rasta 5. The said suit was decreed on 16.12.2000, where-against, the Appeal No. 5 of 2001 was preferred by Keshav Dutt and his brothers, who were defendant nos. 3, 4 and 5 in the original suit. 6. That appeal is pending adjudication and it seems that despite the orders being passed by this Court on 14.10.2014 in WPMS No. 2367 of 2013, learned Judge could not decide the same. 7. 3, 4 and 5 in the original suit. 6. That appeal is pending adjudication and it seems that despite the orders being passed by this Court on 14.10.2014 in WPMS No. 2367 of 2013, learned Judge could not decide the same. 7. In the fitness of things, the operative paragraph of the order passed by this Court is quoted as below:- “All told, the Court feels that the attempt on the part of Prashant Mishra (petitioner) and Yagya Dutt Mishra is nothing but a mischievous endeavour, in the form of delay tactics, to prolong the litigation, as much as they can, for the simple reason that they are in possession over the property in question and they are not permitting the Court to finally adjudicate the mater even after passing of one generation. The Court restrains itself to impose heavy cost for this nefarious attempt on the part of petitioner or his kins, and expect the lower appellate court to adjudicate the matter as quickly as possible, without any further delay.” 8. During pendency of this appeal, an application was moved by Upendra Kumar Sharma and Mukesh Kumar (revisionists herein) under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking their impleadment, stating that the boundaries of the property, which is the subject matter of suit, are not of Khasra No. 1601 but the same belong to Khasra No. 1273. 9. Learned counsel on behalf of the revisionists has also revealed that another Original Suit No. 246 of 2015, has now been initiated by Mr. Upendra Kumar Sharma and Mukesh Kumar, seeking perpetual injunction and declaring their ownership and possession over Khasra No. 1273 but without mentioning any boundary of such Khasra number. 10. It is also pertinent to mention here that no boundaries were disclosed in the sale deed dated 7.12.1979 as well and it is difficult, even for this Court, to believe that these revisionists did not have the knowledge about the pendency of the original suit for last more than two and half decades because they are the residents of the same place and locality, residing all throughout in the same vicinity. 11. So, in the opinion of this Court, initiation of the Original Suit No. 246 of 2015 by the revisionists, herein, seems to be a preempted attempt to frustrate the whole adjudication till if the Appeal No. 5 of 2001 fails. 11. So, in the opinion of this Court, initiation of the Original Suit No. 246 of 2015 by the revisionists, herein, seems to be a preempted attempt to frustrate the whole adjudication till if the Appeal No. 5 of 2001 fails. I find that the grounds, as mentioned in the impugned order, are quite cogent and this revision has no force and it is dismissed at the threshold itself. 12. All the more, I find that it is indeed a sorry state of affairs that despite there being directions by this Court issued two years ago, the appeal before the court below is still pending adjudication. Hence, the court below is hereby directed to decide the said appeal at the earliest but not later than three months from today; no adjudication or interim application, moved by any miscreant litigant, shall be allowed at any cost because the attempt of the defendants as well as of the present revisionists is nothing but seems to defeat and frustrate the whole litigation undergoing in the court below since 1991.