Jharkhand High Court
Md. Abdul Wahab vs Ashok Kumar Singh & Ors on 10 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SA No. 354 of 2017
Md. Abdul Wahab ...... Appellant
Versus
Ashok Kumar Singh & Ors. ......... Respondents
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, Adv.
For the Respondent s : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai , Adv.
16 / 10.08.2023 SA No. 354 of 2017
Perusal of the record reveals that the prayer
for time was allowed to the appellant vide 18.05.2023
subject to deposit of Rs. 1,000/- by the appellant with
the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority.
Learned counsel for the appellant again
prays for time.
Prayer for time is allowed subject to payment of
cost of Rs. 2,000/- by the appellant to the respondents
through the learned counsel for the respondents
appearing in the record within six weeks from the
date of this order, failing which this appeal will stand
dismissed without further reference to the bench.
In case the appellant produces the proof of
payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/- by the appellants to the
respondents through the learned counsel for the
respondents appearing in the record within six weeks,
list this appeal after six weeks.
(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
I.A. No. 1344 of 2021
Heard the parties.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits
that since the appellant is praying for time, the I.A. no.
1344 of 2021 be taken up for hearing.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits
that this interlocutory application has been filed with a
prayer to pass an order for vacating the order
maintaining status quo dated 16.07.2019 and rejecting
the I.A.No.6006 of 2019. It is next submitted by the
learned counsel for the respondents that the appellant-
tenant has no prima facie case for grant of interim relief
nor the balance of convenience is in favour of granting
any order of stay and the equity is against the
appellant. The appellant has not come to the court
with clean hands and now also, the appellant is
dragging on this appeal by repeatedly praying for
time.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the appellant has good case and hope that a favorable
judgment may be passed in favour of the appellant
after final disposal of the case. It is next submitted that
the respondents are doing the business of tailoring for
last 45 years and a goodwill is attached to the shop in
question. The respondents have got 12 other shops in
the same market complex. It is further submitted that
the appellant is ready to pay the entire arrear rent to
the respondents and in fact the appellant has
deposited Rs. 50,000/- in the court, in the shape of
demand draft. It is further submitted by the learned
counsel for the appellant that the appellant got his
daughter married on 29.07.2021 and due to loss in the
business during the lockdown period, he is not able to
pay the arrears immediately and the shop in question
is essential for his livelihood, hence, it is submitted
that the order of the status quo passed on 16.07.2019
may not be vacated.
Having heard the submission made at the bar
and after going through the materials in the record,
this court is of the considered view that the appeal is of
the year 2017 and the appellant has been taking time
repeatedly. It is a cause of concern everywhere, that
the persons, in whose favors judgment and decree are
being passed, are not able to get the fruits of the decree
for one reason or the other; including order of stay or
status quo.
Learned counsels for neither of the parties can
state before this Court, the stage of the execution
proceeding. However, learned counsel for the
respondents submits that the execution proceeding has
not proceeded because of the order of the status quo
passed by this court.
Under such circumstance, as the appellant is
taking adjournments repeatedly and is not cooperating
with the hearing of the appeal, this court is not
inclined to extend the period of the order of the status
quo, accordingly, the order of status quo dated
16.07.2019 is vacated.
The Registry is directed to intimate the court
concerned forthwith.
This interlocutory application is disposed of
accordingly.
(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
Smita/-
