Santokh Singh vs . Bharat Bhushan & Ors.
2022 Latest Caselaw 480 HP

.

Santokh Singh vs. Bharat Bhushan & ors.

RSA No.469/2017 A

2.3.2022 Present: Mr. Harish Kumar Verma, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Yogender Paul, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate, for proforma respondents No.4, 5 (a) to 5 (3) and 6.

Admit on the following substantial questions of

law :

1. Whether the findings of the learned Court below are without appreciating the evidence and pleadings correctly and its true perspective and

thus, findings are perverse ?

2. Whether impugned judgments and decrees are the result of complete misreading,

misinterpretation and mis-appreciation of provisions of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act ?

3. Whether the learned Court below has not considered the fact that the suit was barred by limitation and the pleadings have not been

properly appreciated and thus, findings are perverse ?

4. Whether impugned judgments and decrees are then result of complete misreading, misinterpretation and mis appreciation of the statements of PW-1 to PW-4 and DW-1 to DW-4 ?

CMP No.9642/2017

The present application, under Order 39 Rules 1

and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has

been maintained by the applicant. As per the applicants,

applicants and proforma respondents No.4 to 6, who are owners-

in-possession of the suit land. Therefore, in case, during the

pendency of appeal, respondents No.1 and 2 are not restrained

and prohibited from interfering in the peaceful possession of the

applicants and proforma respondents, who would suffer

irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be compensated in

terms of money. The learned lower Appellate Court has failed to

consider the entire oral as well as documentary evidence. The

learned Courts below have also not considered the question of

.

:: 2 ::

limitation and it has not considered the provisions of Section 41

of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 53-A of Transfer of

Property Act. The application is duly supported with an affidavit.

Reply to the application has been filed and it is

averred that the learned Courts below have recorded a

concurrent finding of fact that there was an agreement to sell

and possession was delivered to the respondents and prays for

dismissal of the application. Reply to the application is also duly

supported with an affidavit.

Heard. At this stage, taking into consideration the

fact that as the main appeal is pending adjudication and in order

to avoid multiplicity of litigation, in case order dated 21.11.2017,

is not confirmed, the same will give rise multiplicity of litigation,

as the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the applicant

and also the interest of justice demands that parties to maintain

status quo as its exists today. In view of the above, order dated

21.11.2017, is made absolute till final disposal of the main

appeal. Application stands disposed of.

Copy dasti.

( Chander Bhusan Barowalia ) Judge

2nd March, 2022 (CS)