Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 344 (PAT)

Randhir Paswan @ Randhir Kumar v. Sangeeta Kumari

2025-03-26

ARUN KUMAR JHA

body2025
Arun Kumar Jha, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and I intend to dispose of the present petition at the stage of admission itself. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 27.03.2023 passed by learned Additional District Judge-4th, Jamui in Misc. Appeal No. 06 of 2021 whereby and whereunder the learned 1st appellate court set aside the order dated 14.06.2021 passed by learned Sub Judge-II, Jamui in Title Partition Suit No. 174 of 2013 wherein the learned trial court directed the parties not to transfer the suit property or to change its physical feature during pendency of the suit. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order has been passed without appreciation of facts and the order is perverse. The learned trial court has considered all the aspects of the matter and thereafter allowed the injunction application of the petitioners who are plaintiffs before the learned trial court. Learned counsel further submits that the endeavor of the court should be towards the protection of the property of the lis and considering this legal dictum in mind, the learned trial court passed the order but the same was not considered by the learned 1st appellate court. Learned counsel referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Anand Prasad Sharma & Anr. vs. Sri Nagendra Singh & Ors. reported in 2024(3) BLJ 575 wherein this Court relying the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot vs. Baldev Das, reported in (2004) 8 SCC 488 and held that during pendency of the suit, the suit property should be protected by injunction so that the same is available after the suit is disposed of and decree does not become barren one. Learned counsel further relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot (supra) wherein it has held that unless and until a case of irreparable loss or damage is made out by a party to the suit, the court should not permit the nature of the property being changed which also includes alienation or transfer of the property which may lead to loss or damage being caused to the party who may ultimately succeed and may further lead to multiplicity of proceedings. 4. Perused the record. 5. 4. Perused the record. 5. From perusal of record, the fact which is quite glaring is that the learned trial court did not consider the existence of any prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs/petitioners or any irreparable loss coming in the way if no injunction was granted. Further, balance of convenience was not at all considered. It is a partition suit and every co-sharer is a joint owner and keeping this fact into consideration, the learned trial court should have approached the matter and without deciding the issues of prima facie case, balance of convenience or irreparable loss to the plaintiffs/petitioners in case injunction was not granted, the learned trial court should have decided the matter of injunction, a duty in which it has utterly failed. So far as submission of learned counsel for the petitioners about the order of the learned 1st appellate court being perverse is concerned, the same is not reflected from the order sheets. The learned 1st appellate court has considered the settled proposition of law with regard to the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and came to a finding that the order of the learned trial court which has been impugned before the learned 1st appellate court was erroneous, perverse and unsustainable and held that prima facie case and balance of convenience were never in favour of the plaintiffs/petitioners and no irreparable injury would be caused to them. For the reasoning adopted by the learned 1st appellate court, I have no hesitation in holding that the finding recorded by the learned 1st appellate court is correct and the reasons for the finding are sound. 6. In the light of aforesaid discussion, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 27.03.2023 passed by learned Additional District Judge-4th, Jamui in Misc. Appeal No. 06 of 2021 finding no error of jurisdiction and hence, the same is affirmed. 7. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.