Patna High Court - Orders
Nagendra Prasad vs Bindeshwari Prasad & Ors on 28 September, 2012
Author: V. Nath
Bench: V. Nath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
First Appeal No.378 of 1996
======================================================
Nagendra Prasad
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
Bindeshwari Prasad & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Viveka Nand Pathak
Mr. Surendra Kishore Thakur
Mr. Ravi Shanker Dvivedi
Mr. Kumari Vandana
Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Dwivedi
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar
Mr. Pushpa Kumari
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shrivastava
Mr. Sanjay Prasad
Mr. Yogendrra Prrasad Sinha
Mr. R.C.Sinha
Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sinha
Mr. Rakesh Ranjan
Mr. Jay Ram Sah
Mr. Shashi Bhushan
Mr. Md.Rustam
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH
ORAL ORDER
41 28-09-2012I.A. No. 5599 of 2012 Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in support of this interlocutory application.
This interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the appellants praying to implead purchaser from respondent nos. 7 and 8 as party respondent in this appeal. It has been stated in the interlocutory application that the respondent nos. 7 and 8 have Patna High Court FA No.378 of 1996 (41) dt.28-09-2012 2 executed two sale deeds dated 27.03.2009 and 07.02.2009 in favour of Laxman Sah (detail given in paragraph 6 of the interlocutory application) alienating parts of the suit property to him.
No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents denying the said fact. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of some of the respondents has raised no objection to the prayer of the appellants.
As such, the prayer is allowed. Laxaman Sah (the purchaser from respondent nos. 7 and 8) is impleaded as respondent no. 39 in this appeal.
Issue appeal notice to the newly added respondent no. 39 for which the appellants must file requisites both under registered cover as well as by ordinary process within two weeks, failing which the memo of appeal shall stand rejected without further reference to a Bench.
I.A. No. 5600 of 2012 This interlocutory application has been filed by the appellants praying for injunction restraining the respondents including the newly added respondent from alienating or encumbering the suit property during the pendency of this appeal.
It has been stated in the interlocutory application that the Patna High Court FA No.378 of 1996 (41) dt.28-09-2012 3 respondents have already sold the part of the suit property and are further proposing to sell the remaining suit properties to the strangers. It has been stated in paragraph 9 that respondent nos. 7 and 8 have already executed the sale deeds in favour of Laxman Sah alienating the part of the property. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the alienation during the pendency of this appeal would create complication and would give rise to layers of litigations in future.
No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents to this interlocutory application. No one has appeared on behalf of respondent nos. 7 and 8. The learned counsel appearing for some of the respondents has raised no objection to the prayer of the appellants. It is well settled that when the lis is pending adjudication, the property subject matter of litigation must be protected by appropriate order so that the ultimate decree may not be barren one.
In view of the statements made in the interlocutory application and after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is just and proper that both parties to this appeal be restrained from alienating, or encumbering the suit property or creating third party interest in the same except after permission of this Court, Patna High Court FA No.378 of 1996 (41) dt.28-09-2012 4 till further orders. It is so ordered, accordingly.
The further prayer in the interlocutory application has been made complaining that the alienee from respondent nos. 7 and 8 has started interference in the possession of the appellants over the suit property and has been proposing to make construction forcibly upon the portions of the land purchased by him. The appellants have prayed for appropriate restraint order against the respondent (now added as respondent no. 39 in this appeal) from interfering in possession of the appellants or charging the physical feature of the suit land by making construction.
Issue notice to the newly added respondent no. 39 in the injunction matter for which the appellants must file requisites both under registered cover as well as by ordinary process within two weeks, failing which the interlocutory application shall stand rejected without further reference to a Bench.
Devendra/- (V. Nath, J)