Patna High Court - Orders
Sri Rajnandan Singh vs Sri Satish Kumaar Gupta & Ors. on 14 August, 2013
Author: V. Nath
Bench: V. Nath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
First Appeal No.184 of 2010
======================================================
Sri Rajnandan Singh
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
Sri Satish Kumaar Gupta & Ors.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH
ORAL ORDER
12 14-08-2013The appellant has filed this Interlocutory application(I.A.No. 3085 of 2013) praying for stay of further proceeding of Execution Case No. 2 of 2010, pending in the court of Sub-Judge-X , Patna, for execution of the decree for specific performance of contract passed in Title Suit No. 39 of 1995 during the pendency of this appeal against the said decree.
2.In the decree under execution, the learned court below has issued a direction to the defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land described in Schedule-I of the plaint after receiving the balance consideration money, as per agreement, within sixty days failing which it shall be done through the process of the court. The plaintiffs have filed the present Execution Case praying for execution of the sale deed as directed. The defendant, who is appellant in this appeal, has filed the present Interlocutory application for stay of further proceeding in the Execution Case during the pendency of the appeal.
3. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that 2 Patna High Court FA No.184 of 2010 (14) dt.14-08-2013 2/3 soon after the execution of the sale deed the plaintiffs-respondents will transfer the suit property to several persons for building purposes and such transfer will put the defendant to substantial injury, as he will have to file several suits for ejectment of the transferees involving unnecessary cost in the process of litigation. The learned counsel has relied on the statements made by the appellant in paragraph no.14 of the Interlocutory application in this regard. The plaintiffs-respondents have filed a rejoinder to the Interlocutory application for stay filed on behalf of the appellant and in paragraph no.18 of the rejoinder the respondents have categorically denied the statements made in paragraph nos. 10 to 14 of the stay petition as wrong, false and baseless.
4. In this view of the matter, I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, as it is only the apprehension of the defendant-appellant that the plaintiffs-respondents will transfer the suit property after getting the sale deed executed in their favour and even this apprehension stands falsified in view of the aforesaid denial by the plaintiffs- respondents.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has further urged that a supplementary affidavit has been filed in this appeal stating that the nature of the suit land has now changed and a residential house is now standing thereon in which the appellant is residing. A rejoinder to the said supplementary affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents denying the aforesaid statement that the nature of the suit land has changed and it has been stated that no residential house is standing over the suit land. In view of this contradictory stand of the parties on the issue of nature of the land and in view of the admitted fact that the 3 Patna High Court FA No.184 of 2010 (14) dt.14-08-2013 3/3 plaintiffs have not prayed for delivery of possession over the suit land in the Execution Case, this issue at present loses its relevancy. The appellant may take recourse to the remedy available to him in law, if the plaintiffs-respondents pray for delivery of possession over the suit property after the execution of the sale deed in their favour.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in this Interlocutory application, which is, accordingly, dismissed with the aforesaid observations.
B.Roy/- (V. Nath, J)