Patna High Court - Orders
Ranjit Kumar vs Lila Devi on 12 March, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar
Bench: Rakesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No.658 of 2008
======================================================
Ranjit Kumar , Son of Late Ram Chandra Prasad Singh, resident of M/S
Bharat Scientific Traders, Opposite Science College, Post Office-Mahendru,
Police Station- Pirbahore, Town and District-Patna - Postal Pin Code-
800006
.... .... Appellant
Versus
Smt. Lila Devi widow of Late Pashupati Nath Verma, resident of
Mohalla- Thatheri Bazar, Post Office-Mahendru, Opposite Science
College, Police Station-Pirbahore, Town and District-Patna, Postal Pin
Code 800006
.... .... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance:
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Subhash Prasad Singh
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
-------------------
5 12-03-2012Heard Sri Subhash Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Abhay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sole Respondent.
The present appeal has been preferred under Section 104 read with Order XLIII, Rule 1( r ) of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order, which was passed long back on 20.09.2008 in Title Suit No.115 of 2008, whereby the learned Sub Judge-I ,Patna had rejected the petition filed on behalf of the plaintiff- appellant under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 , read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of injunction. The plaintiff-appellant has filed a suit under the provision of Specific Performance Act for directing the defendant-respondent to execute sale deed in respect of the properties mentioned in agreement to sale. During the pendency of suit, the injunction petition was filed, which has been rejected by the impugned 2 Patna High Court MA No.658 of 2008 (5) dt.12-03-2012 2/3 order.
Sri Subhash Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submits that almost entire consideration amount had already been paid to the defendant-respondent, even then the defendant-respondent was not taking steps for executing registered sale deed and, as such, the appellant was constrained to file the suit under provisions of Specific Performance Act. It was submitted that during the pendency of the suit, it was required for the court below to allow the petition for restraining the defendant-respondent from alienating the suit property or create third-party interest and, as such, injunction petition was filed.
In view of the facts and circumstances, it was submitted that it is a fit case for grant of injunction in favour of the plaintiff-appellant.
Sri Abhay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant. It was submitted that in the plaint filed before the court below itself, there was alternative prayer of the appellant for refund of consideration money. According to Sri Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent , in case of rejection of injunction petition, the plaintiff-appellant was not going to suffer irreparable loss and in absence of one of the main ingredients i.e. irreparable loss injunction was not required to be granted and the learned court below has rightly dismissed the same. He has also submitted that no prima facie case is established by the plaintiff- appellant.
Be that as it may, fact remains that the suit was filed in the year 2008 and at the same time injunction petition was rejected on 20.09.2008 and, as such, after such a long time it would not be appropriate to record finding on the question of grant of injunction .Without going into the merit of the 3 Patna High Court MA No.658 of 2008 (5) dt.12-03-2012 3/3 case or interfering with the impugned order, the Court is of the opinion that this appeal can be disposed of with direction to the court below for expeditious disposal of the suit. Both the parties, who have appeared before this Court, are required to render full assistance to the court below, so that the trial in Title Suit No.115 of 2008 may come to its logical end without unnecessary delay.
With above observation and direction, the appeal stands disposed of.
(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/-