Laxmichand v. Smt. Savitri Devi and 2 Others

Court No. - 1 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9689 of 2023 Petitioner :- Laxmichand Respondent :- Smt. Savitri Devi And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nipun Singh,Sumit Suri Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mithal,Gaurav Dhama Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶1Heard Shri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vinayak Mithal, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-respondents.

¶2This petition has been filed seeking the following relief: "i. Set aside the impugned order dated 08.09.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, District Meerut in Misc. Appeal No. 242/2017 (Smt. Savitri Devi and others Vs. Laxmichand) (Annexure No. 1 to the petition); ii. Direct the parties to maintain status quo over the property in dispute during the pendency of the Original Suit No. 517/2007 (Laxmichand Vs. Savitri and others) in terms of temporary injunction order dated

25.11.2017;"

¶3It appears that the petitioner filed a suit seeking declaration of voidance of a will deed dated 18.4.2006. It appears that the aforesaid suit was filed in the year 2007 but in the year 2017, an application 61C was filed by the petitioner seeking temporary injunction. By an order dated 25.11.2017, the trial court in Original Suit No. 517 of 2007 directed the parties to maintain status quo. The order dated 25.11.2017 was challenged by the defendants in Misc. Appeal No. 242 of 2017 filed in the court of the District Judge, Meerut. By the impugned order dated

8.9.2023, the Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Meerut has allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 25.11.2017 passed by the trial court.

¶4The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as noticed by the trial court, on record was an Amin report filed in Original Suit No. 183 of 2016. It is stated by him that copy of another sale deed bearing the same date of 18.4.2006 was also on record which was not considered by the appellate court while setting aside the order of the temporary injunction granted by the trial court. It is stated that since the year 2017, the temporary injunction was operating and after a period of five years, the injunction ought not to have been vacated by the appellate court.

¶5Sri Vinayak Mittal, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the petition and has contended that the suit was filed for declaration simplicitor without any other relief and therefore, given the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, the injunction cannot be granted and as such, under provisions of U.P. Amendment in Order 39 Rule 2 CPC, temporary injunction too could not have been granted.

¶6A perusal of the plaint that has been filed as Annexure No. 2 to this petition reflects that it seeks declaration of voidance of sale deed dated 18.4.2006, the details of registration of which are reflected in the relief clause of the plaint. Evident it is that after a period of nearly 10 years, the application for temporary injunction 61C was filed on which the order of status quo was passed by the trial court on 25.11.2017. Annexure No. 8 is the memorandum of Misc. Appeal No. 242 of 2017, which was apparently filed in December, 2017 itself. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the interim order was vacated after a period of five years due to any fault on part of the defendants. The appellate court in its order in paragraph 21 and 22 has observed as follows: "21-वविदቛኋन अविर न्यቛኋयቛኋलय दቛኋरቛኋ पቛኋररत आकቌኔवपत आदቌኔश वदनቛኋाሪवकित 25.11.2007 किቌኔ मቛኋध्यम सቌኔ पककिቛኋरोሲ किको वविविቛኋवदत सम्पतቈኌ पर यथቛኋससथवत बनቛኋयቌኔ रखቌኔ जቛኋनቌኔ किቛኋ आदቌኔश पቛኋररत वकियቛኋ गयቛኋ हहै। बቛኋदपत मम वविपकक/विቛኋदक दቛኋरቛኋ वविविቛኋवदत भभूवम किकी पहचቛኋन किቌኔ सम्बन्ध मम किकोई वविविरण ्ቚसततुत नहीሻ वकियቛኋ गयቛኋ हहै क्योሲवकि उनकिቌኔ दቛኋरቛኋ अनतुतकोष किቌኔ रूप मम दसतቛኋविቌኔज बहैनቛኋमቛኋ वदनቛኋाሪवकित 18.04.2006 किको शभून्य घकोवषत वकियቌኔ जቛኋनቌኔ किቌኔ अनतुतकोष किकी यቛኋचनቛኋ किकी गयक थक। वविपकक/विቛኋदक नቌኔ विቛኋदपत मम सम्पभूणर दसतቛኋविቌኔज बहैनቛኋमቛኋ किको शभून्य घकोवषत वकियቌኔ जቛኋनቌኔ किकी मቛኋाሪग नहीሻ किकी हहै विरन उसቌኔ एकि सकमቛኋ तकि वबनቛኋ अतधकिቛኋर, अकिकत एविाሪ शभून्य घकोवषत वकियቌኔ जቛኋनቌኔ किकी यቛኋचनቛኋ किकी गयक हहै। वविपकक /विቛኋदक दቛኋरቛኋ उपरको्ሹ मभूलविቛኋद मम असथቛኋयक वनषቌኔधቛኋजቛኋ किቌኔ अनतुतकोष हቌኔततु जको ्ቚቛኋथरनቛኋ पत 61 ग ्ቚसततुत वकियቛኋ गयቛኋ हहै उसमम उनकिቌኔ दቛኋरቛኋ विቛኋदपत मम विवणरत ववि्ቅयपत मम विवणरत सम्पतቈኌ पर असथቛኋयक वनषቌኔधቛኋजቛኋ किቌኔ अनतुतकोष किकी यቛኋचनቛኋ किकी हहै। इस ्ቚकिቛኋर विቛኋदपत मम विवणरत अनतुतकोष तथቛኋ्ቚ ቛኋथरनቛኋ पत 61 ग किቌኔ मቛኋध्यम सቌኔ यቛኋवचत अनतुतकोष आपस मम वविरकोधቛኋभቛኋषक हहै। 22-मभूलविቛኋद साሪ० 517/2007 मम जको विቛኋदपतकिቌኔ मቛኋध्यम सቌኔ विቛኋद साሪससथत वकियቛኋ गयቛኋ हहै उसकिቌኔ मቛኋध्यम सቌኔ विቛኋदक दቛኋरቛኋ दसतቛኋविቌኔज बहैनቛኋमቛኋ किको शभून्य घकोवषत वकियቌኔ जቛኋनቌኔ किቌኔ अनतुतकोष किकी यቛኋचनቛኋ किकी गयक हहै। बቛኋदपत किቌኔ मቛኋध्यम सቌኔ वनषቌኔधቛኋजቛኋ यቛኋ भभूवम किቌኔ वविभቛኋजन किቌኔ वकिसक अनतुतकोष किकी यቛኋचनቛኋ वविपकक /विቛኋदक दቛኋरቛኋ न्यቛኋयቛኋलय मम नहीሻ किकी गयक हहै। यवद इस सतर पर बहैनቛኋमቛኋ मन्सभूखक किቌኔ विቛኋद मम असथቛኋयक वनषቌኔधቛኋजቛኋ किቛኋ अनतुतकोष वविपकक/विቛኋदक किको ्ቚदቛኋन वकियቛኋ जቛኋतቛኋ हहै तको यह धቛኋरቛኋ 34 वविवनवदर्ቖ अनतुतकोष अतधवनयम 1963 किቛኋ उ्ቤघाሪन हकोगቛኋ। धቛኋरቛኋ 34 वविवनवदर्ቖ अनतुतकोष अतधवनयम किቛኋ पराሪततुकि यह उपबसन्धत किरतቛኋ हहै वकि - "पराሪततु किकोई भक न्यቛኋयቛኋलय विहቛኋाሺ ऐसक घकोषणቛኋ नहीሻ किरቌኔगक जहቛኋाሺ वकि विቛኋदक हकि किकी घकोषणቛኋ मቛኋत किቌኔ अवतरर्ሹ किकोई अनतुतकोष मቛኋाሪगनቌኔ किቌኔ यकोग्य हकोतቌኔ हहए भक विहैसቛኋ किरनቌኔ मम लकोप किरቌኔ।" चभूाሪवकि विቛኋदपत किቌኔ मቛኋध्यम सቌኔ वनषቌኔधቛኋजቛኋ किቌኔ अनतुतकोष किकी किकोई मቛኋाሪग वविपकक /विቛኋदक दቛኋरቛኋ नहीሻ किकी गयक हहै अथቛኋरतत् वनषቌኔधቛኋजቛኋ किቌኔ अनतुतकोष किकी मቛኋाሪग किቌኔ सम्बन्ध मम वविपकक / विቛኋदक दቛኋरቛኋ लकोप किቛኋररत वकियቛኋ गयቛኋ हहै। उपरको्ሹ समसत वविविቌኔचनቛኋ एविाሪ वविश्लቌኔषण सቌኔ यह सप्ቖ हहै वकि यवद असथቛኋयक वनषቌኔधजቛኋቛኋ किቛኋ ्ቚቛኋथरनቛኋ पत 61 ग वनरसत वकियቛኋ जቛኋतቛኋ हहै तको इससቌኔ वविपकक/विቛኋदक किको वकिसक्ቚ किቛኋर किकी किकोई कवत किቛኋररत हकोनቛኋ साሪभቛኋव्य नहीሻ हहै।"

¶7In view of the aforesaid observations of the appellate court, it cannot be said that the order impugned dated 8.9.2023 suffers from any material error or irregularity that may warrant interference in this petition. The submissions being made by the learned counsel for the petitioner can be well addressed at the appropriate stage. Such facts, which require evidence to be led, cannot be relied upon for grant of temporary injunction.

¶8This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶9At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that a direction be issued to the trial court to expedite the trial. Since, the ordersheet of the trial court has not been enclosed, therefore, it is difficult to ascertain as to which stage the trial is at present. However, it is open for the petitioner to move an application before the trial court for expediting consideration of the suit, which application, if filed, would be considered by the trial court expeditiously. Order Date :- 22.11.2023 A. V. Singh (Jayant Banerji, J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad