Jharkhand High Court
Jaleshwar Mahto vs Subodhani Devi & Ors on 5 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No.151 of 2020
-----
Jaleshwar Mahto .......... Petitioner.
-Versus-
Subodhani Devi & Ors. .......... Respondents.
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. J. J. Sanga, Advocate
For the Respondent no.6: Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate
-----
Order No.06 Date: 05.02.2021
I.A. No.2470 of 2020:
This case is taken up through video conferencing.
The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf
of the petitioner for restraining the respondents from making any
construction over the suit land pursuant to the award passed in
Original Case no.1297 of 2019 and to direct the parties to maintain
status quo over the suit land during pendency of the present civil
miscellaneous petition.
Mr. J. J. Sanga, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits the
petitioner happened to be the defendant no.3 in Title Suit no.91 of
2010, who filed his separate written statement, contesting the claim
of the plaintiffs and the defendant no.4, primarily on the ground that
the petitioner purchased a portion of the suit land measuring an area
of 3.56 acres, appertaining to R.S. plot nos. 543, 562, 563, 565, 566
& 567 of Khata no.92 of village Tatisilwai, by virtue of registered sale
deed dated 14th May, 2010 for valuable consideration pursuant to the
judgment and decree passed in the said title suit and he is in
continuous possession of the said land. It is also submitted that the
defendant no.4 had no right, title, interest, possession and share over
the said land whatsoever. The plaintiffs of Original Case no.1297 of
2019 (arising out of Partition Suit no.412 of 2011) adduced their oral
and documentary evidences and the said case was fixed for evidence
on behalf of the defendants on 27th January, 2020, however, on the
prayer of the counsel for the defendants the case was adjourned to
17th March, 2020. Though the next date in the suit was fixed for 17th
March, 2020, the plaintiffs in collusion and connivance with the
defendant nos.1 and 2 and without any notice or knowledge to the
defendant no.3 (petitioner herein) got the matter disposed of in Lok
Adalat fraudulently. Though no petition was filed by either of the
parties to refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat, the suit was referred to
Lok Adalat on 8th February, 2020 and the award was passed on the
same day by the Lok Adalat at the instance of the plaintiffs and the
defendant nos.1 and 2 without taking consent of the defendant no.3.
It is also submitted that the petitioner was not served any notice or
was provided any opportunity of hearing by the Lok Adalat while
disposing of the said suit, which has compelled the petitioner to prefer
the instant petition, as the procedure adopted by the Lok Adalat is
contrary to the provisions of Section 20(3) of Legal Services Authorities
Act, 1987 as well as rule 17 of National Legal Services Authority (Lok
Adalat) Regulation, 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that pursuant to the award passed by the Lok Adalat in
Original Case no.1297 of 2019, the respondents are bent upon to make
construction over the suit land and are trying to dispossess the
petitioner from the same.
Mr. Arwind Kumar, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the
respondent no.6 submits that since the petitioner was one of the
defendants in the suit, which was subsequently disposed of in Lok
Adalat on the basis of compromise entered between the parties, he
has no locus standi to file the present petition, which otherwise is not
maintainable.
No one appears on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 5, though
it was informed on 15th January, 2021 by Mr. Shree Nivas Roy,
Advocate, on instruction of Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate, to apprise
this Court that he had the instruction to appear on behalf of the
respondent nos.1 to 5 also and would file Vaklatnama shortly.
Today, Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate submits that he only
appears on behalf of respondent no.6, as the Vakalatnama earlier
given to him by the respondent nos.1 to 5 has been taken back by
them.
Be that as it may.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
respondent no.6, I am of the view that the petitioner has been able to
make out a prima facie case in his favour. The balance of convenience
is also in favour of the petitioner. If no interim order is passed in his
favour, he will suffer irreparable loss and injury.
Hence, the parties are directed to maintain status quo as
existing today till further orders.
I.A. No.2470 of 2020 is, accordingly, disposed of.
C.M.P. No.151 of 2020
Put up this case under appropriate heading after four weeks.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Sanjay/
