Lal Pradip Nath Sahdeo vs Lal Ranjan Nath Sahdeo & Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 4288 Jhar

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           F. A. No. 63 of 2020
        Lal Pradip Nath Sahdeo                  . ... .... Appellant
                               Versus
        Lal Ranjan Nath Sahdeo & Others         .... ...       Respondents
                               ------

CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK

------

For the Appellant : Mr. Ramawatar Choubey, Advocate For the Resp. Nos.

-----

5/ 19.10.2022 Earlier notices were issued to the respondents vide order dated 4.8.2021. Respondent nos. 5 to 8, 10 have already been appeared through Vakalatnama. As per office note, respondent nos. 1, 11, 13, 14 and 15 have not yet appeared.

Let fresh steps for service of notice be taken on respondent nos. 1, 11, 13, 14 and 15 on their present and correct address, for which, requisites etc. must be filed by the appellant within eight weeks through registered cover with A/D, as also under ordinary process.

So far as respondent no.12 is concerned, since undelivered A/D has not been received, no fresh step is required for the present.

List this appeal after service of notice.

Motices were issued on 4.8.2021, but it appears that this appeal has not been yet admitted, let the same be admitted for hearing.

Admit.

I.A. No. 529 of 2021 This interlocutory application under Order XLI Rule 5 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed for stay of the judgment and order dated 29.2.2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division-II), Latehar.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff-appellant filed Title Suit No. 31 of 2011 for declaration of the sale deeds executed by his co-sharers in favour of other respondents as null and void and further for confirmation of possession being the land as joint family property and further restraining the purchaser-respondents to interfere into peaceful possession over the suit

land. Learned counsel further argues that it is a joint property and till date, no partition was affected.

Learned counsel further argues that there is prime facie case in favour of the appellants and balance of convenience also lies in favour of the appellant. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the purchaser-respondents have threatened the appellant for taking possession and have got fallen bricks and other materials beside the land in question.

In view of the specific averments made in the interlocutory application, as also in view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, the operation of the impugned judgment dated 29.2.2020 and decree signed on 6.3.2020 passed in Title Suit No. 31 of 2011 by Md. Taufique Ahmed, Civil Judge (Senior Division-II), Latehar is hereby stayed till the next date of hearing.

The aforesaid interlocutory application stands allowed.

(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.) R.Kr.