Jharkhand High Court
M/S. Sahara India Commercial ... vs Uday Shankar Paul And Ors on 15 April, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
2022:JHHC:43341
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
First Appeal No. 43 of 2012
With
I.A. No. 4184 of 2022
With
I.A. No. 3659 of 2025
with
I.A. No. 3662 of 2025
with
I.A. No. 4640 of 2025
M/s. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India and
others ... ... Appellants
Versus
Uday Shankar Paul and Ors. ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Vishal Kr. Tiwary, Advocate
: Mr. Rishi Pallava, Advocate
For the Resp. Nos. 1 to 9 : Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate
: Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate
: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For Resp. Nos. 10 to 15 : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
: Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush, Advocate
For the Resp. No. 19 : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Advocate
---
87/15.04.2025 I.A. No. 4640 of 2025
1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. This interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the
respondent nos. 10 to 15 by citing section 151 of Civil Procedure
Code (in short 'CPC') with a prayer to set-aside the execution
proceedings being Execution Case No. 30 of 2023.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 10 to 15 has
submitted that the present First Appeal was earlier disposed of and the
matter has been remanded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for fresh
consideration and in the meantime, certain developments have taken
place.
4. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs who are respondent nos. 1 to
9 in the present case, have opposed the prayer made through aforesaid
interlocutory application by submitting that in case any decree is
2022:JHHC:43341
modified , under such circumstances the parties have remedy under
section 144 of CPC and the present appeal is confined to the
impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below. He
submits that as on date the decree of the trial court still stands.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 9 has further
submitted that such remedy as prayed for through the aforesaid
Interlocutory Application will crystalize depending upon whether the
impugned decree is modified or reversed or upheld by this Court in
this First Appeal. He submits that the present interlocutory application
is not maintainable.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the nature of relief sought for through this interlocutory
application, this Court is of the view that the aforesaid interlocutory
application is not maintainable before this Court in this first appeal.
7. However, it is observed that the parties may have their remedy
as may be permissible under law.
8. I.A. No. 4640 of 2025 is dismissed as not maintainable.
9. I.A. No. 3662 of 2025 has been filed by the appellants., I.A.
No. 3659 of 2025 has been filed by the respondent nos. 10 to 15 and
I.A. No. 4184 of 2022 has been filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 9 i.e.,
the plaintiffs of the case. All these interlocutory applications are for
adducing additional evidence.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 9 is permitted to
file reply to I.A. No. 3662 of 2025 and I.A. No. 3659 of 2025 by
tomorrow, failing which no further opportunity will be granted to file
reply. Rejoinder, if any, within next 15 days.
11. It appears that no reply has been filed to I.A. No. 4184 of 2022
by the respondent nos. 10 to 15. They pray for and are permitted to
respond to I.A. No. 4184 of 2022 within a period of 15 days from
today, failing which no further opportunity will be granted. Rejoinder,
if any, within 7 days thereafter.
12. Post this case on 07th May 2025.
2022:JHHC:43341
13. It is further observed that the documents sought to be adduced
through additional evidence through one or the other interlocutory
application be placed on record in original prior to the next date of
hearing, failing which one or the other document will not be
considered.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Pankaj
