Patna High Court - Orders
Most.Sushila Devi vs Ashok Kumar Gupta & Ors on 8 April, 2013
Author: Mungeshwar Sahoo
Bench: Mungeshwar Sahoo
Patna High Court FA No.136 of 2000 (21) dt.08-04-2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
First Appeal No.136 of 2000
======================================================
Most.Sushila Devi
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
Ashok Kumar Gupta & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dipak Kumar No-1
Mr. Janardan Prasad Singh
Mr. Sumant Kumar Tiwari
Mr. Sudhir Kumar Singh
Mr. Janardan Prasad Singh
Mr. Dipak Kumar-1
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh-1
Mr. Bajarangi Lal
Mr. Raj Shekhar
Mr. Amrendra Kumar
Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha
Mr. Krishna Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR
SAHOO
ORAL ORDER
21 08-04-2013Heard the learned counsel for the appellant on I.A. No.227 of 2013.
This I.A. has been filed by the appellant praying for adding the purchasers of portion of the suit property during the pendency of this appeal. The details of two purchasers have been mentioned in paragraph 10 (a) and 10 (b) of the I.A. No.227 of 2013. So far the two persons mentioned in detail in paragraph 10
(c) and 10 (d) are concerned, they are the vendors.
The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Patna High Court FA No.136 of 2000 (21) dt.08-04-2013 2 during the pendency of this appeal, an injunction order was passed by this court on 24.04.2002 restraining the respondents from transferring the suit property but in spite of that injunction order, the respondents have sold the suit property in favour of two persons.
In view of the decision reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2209, the I.A. No.227 of 2013 is allowed. Only two purchasers mentioned in detail in paragraph 10 (a) and 10 (b) are added as respondent nos.4 and 5. The prayer for adding the two vendors i.e. the sons of respondent no.3 is rejected.
The appellant shall file necessary requisites for appeal notice on the newly added respondents in ordinary process as well as registered post both within 10 days. Peremptory.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant on I.A. No.228 of 2013.
This application has been filed by the appellant under Order 39 Rule 2A read with Section 151 C.P.C. praying for initiating a contempt proceeding against the respondent nos.1(A) to 1(F), 2(i), 2(ii) and respondent no.3 on the ground that the aforesaid respondents along with two sons of respondent no.3 have executed registered sale deeds dated 04.12.2012 in violation of the injunction order passed by this court dated 24.04.2002. Patna High Court FA No.136 of 2000 (21) dt.08-04-2013 3
From perusal of the order dated 24.04.2002, it appears that the respondents were restrained from alienating the suit property during the pendency of the appeal. In spite of the fact that several adjournments were granted on the prayer of the learned counsel for the respondents and in spite of the fact that copies of this I.A. have already been served on the learned counsel, neither any show cause nor any rejoinder or reply has been filed by the respondents. Today, when this application is called on for hearing, nobody appears on behalf of the respondents.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie, it appears that the respondents in violation of the injunction order passed by this court have sold the suit property to the strangers. Accordingly, the office is directed to register this I.A. No.228 of 2013 as a separate MJC application and the same may be placed before the appropriate Bench. So far I.A. No.229 of 2013 is concerned, the same shall be considered after disposal of the aforesaid I.A. No.228 of 2013.
(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) Saurabh/-