Sanjeev Singh @ Arjun Singh Rana vs Manoj Kumar Yadav And 3 Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 3976 ALL

Citation : 2014 Latest Caselaw 3976 ALL
Judgement Date : 4 August, 2014

Allahabad High Court

Sanjeev Singh @ Arjun Singh Rana vs Manoj Kumar Yadav And 3 Ors. on 4 August, 2014

Bench: Rajes Kumar, Om Prakash-Vii




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 2
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2280 of 2014
 

 
Appellant :- Sanjeev Singh @ Arjun Singh Rana
 
Respondent :- Manoj Kumar Yadav And 3 Ors.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Santosh Kumar Srivastava,Smt. Alka Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar,J.

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

The plaintiff-appellant filed the suit for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the operation of J.C.B. machine, bearing chassis no. 1263229, engine no. 4H.2152/0708037, model 2007.

It was the case of the plaintiff-appellant that he was the owner of the suit property. By the order dated 8.4.2008 in Suit No. 1329 of 2007, the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meerut has declared the appellant as the owner of the suit property. However, it is admitted that the registration of said machine has not yet been made in favour of the appellant and the process of registration is going on. Various documents in this regard have been filed. The suit was filed along with an application under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC. Trial court by the impugned order rejected the application on the ground that the appellant is not able to show that such J.C.B. machine was registered in his name in the R.T.O. office.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that by the decree dated 8.4.2008 the appellant has been declared as the owner of the vehicle and had full right to operate the said vehicle. When the defendants-respondent started creating hindrance, the present suit has been filed. The proceeding of the registration of the vehicle is pending before the R.T.O. It is not the case of the defendants that such vehicle was owned by them inasmuch as no finding has been recorded by the trial court in this regard and, therefore, the rejection of the application under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC is not justified.

Prima facie, we find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant.

Issue notice to the respondents returnable at an early date. The appellant may take steps to serve the respondents by registered post.

List in week commencing 8.9.2014.

Until further orders, the respondents are restrained from interfering in the operation of the J.C.B. machine, bearing chassis no. 1263229, engine no. 4H.2152/0708037, model 2007 by the appellant.

Order Date :- 4.8.2014