Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Thana Ram & Ors. vs . Bhjan Singh & Ors. on 12 September, 2008
Author: Prakash Tatia
Bench: Prakash Tatia
SBCMA No.02053/2007
Thana Ram & Ors. Vs. Bhjan Singh & Ors.
-{1}-
SBCMA No.02053/2007
Thana Ram & Ors. Vs. Bhjan Singh & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER : - 12.9.2008
HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J.
Mr. Vijay Jain, for the appellant.
Mr. RK Singhal, for the respondent.
<><><> The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. At the request of learned counsel for the parties, heard this matter finally.
The appellants are aggrieved against the order dated 30.10.2006 which appears to has been passed against the ancestor of the appellants Khinya Ram as the appellants nos. 1 to 4 are sons of Khinya Ram and appellant no.5 is daughter of Khinya Ram. The interim order was passed ex- parte as said Khinya Ram did not appear. Interim order is only to the effect that during the pendency of the suit, the property in question shall not be alienated by Khinya Ram. However, the trial court also vaguely ordered that in case the land is in possession of Bhajan Singh then his SBCMA No.02053/2007 Thana Ram & Ors. Vs. Bhjan Singh & Ors.
-{2}-
possession may not be disturbed.
The appellants' contention is that appellant is aggrieved against the order dated 30.10.2006 because it affects the rights of the appellants in the property in dispute seriously and in fact, the order may operate against the appellants. The appellants submitted an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in the main suit but that application has not been decided by the trial court even when the application was filed in the year 2006. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the respondents may be restrained from alienating the property and also restrained from dispossessing the appellant from the property in dispute. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the appellants have challenged the impugned order being aggrieved party.
So far as appellants' contention that a party who may be affected by the order can directly challenge the order by preferring appeal is concerned, there cannot be any quarrel but in this case, the main suit is pending wherein an application has been moved by the appellants for being SBCMA No.02053/2007 Thana Ram & Ors. Vs. Bhjan Singh & Ors.
-{3}-
impleaded and the same is pending. The appellants may pursue that application and may become party in the suit and, thereafter, can also move application for vacating the interim order dated 30th Oct., 2006. So far as order dated 30th Oct., 2006 is concerned, that is only against one person Khinya Ram and that too of not to alienate the property. The court also has not decided the issue of actual physical possession, therefore, vaguely ordered that if the claimant is in possession of the property, his possession may not be disturbed. This order has also not been passed against the appellant.
In view of the above reasons, this appeal is disposed of with the direction to the trial court to hear and decide the application filed by the appellants under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and same be decided within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, which may be supplied by the appellants to the trial court. The appellants will be free to challenge the order dated 30th Oct., 2006 after becoming party in the suit. The court will decide the application of the appellants in accordance with law after SBCMA No.02053/2007 Thana Ram & Ors. Vs. Bhjan Singh & Ors.
-{4}-
hearing the parties in the suit.
(PRAKASH TATIA), J.
c.p.goyal/-