Ravi Poddar vs M/S Mitra Mandal Sangathan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3461 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                        Miscellaneous Appeal No.589 of 2021
     ======================================================

Ravi Poddar, Son of Shree Shiv Bhagwan Poddar, Resident of Jawahar Lal Road, Police Station-Town, District-Muzafarpur.

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1. M/s Mitra Mandal Sangathan (Association of Person) Hereinafter Called AOP through its President, Kali Das Singh aged 45 Years.

2. Kali Das Singh, S/o Munna Lal Singh Resident of Y-22/05, Awas Vikas Kalyanpur Kanpur City, Uttar Pradesh Permanent Address Village and Post Kashipur, District-Kanpur Dehat, Uttar Pradesh, Pin-209311.

3. Ajit Kumar, S/o Akhileshwar Prasad, Resident of Marhowrah Khur, P.S. Marhowrah, District - Saran Chapra.

4. Miss Sandra, D/o Shri Ram Avadh Singh, Resident of Village and Post Rampart, District - Ghazipur (Uttar Pradesh) Pin-(233001)

5. Hemant Singh, Son of Rama Singh, Resident of Village and Post Kashipur Kanpur Dehat, District - Kanpur (Uttar Pradesh) Pin-209311

6. Anil Katiyar, S/o Shri Ratan Katiyar, Resident of Ashok Nagar, Belhaur Kanpur Nagar (Uttar Pradesh), Pin-(208001)

7. Raj Kumar, S/o Resident of Mohalla Narendra Nagar, H. no 37/0 Unnao Disrict-Unnao (Uttar Pradesh) PIn-(20981)

8. Santosh Kumar, S/o Kali Charan Singh, Resident of Plot no. 16 Ganga Nagar, Shyam Nagar Kanpur, District Kanpur Nagar (Uttar Pradesh) Pin- (20931)

9. M/s Mitra Mandal Sangathan, A Society Registered Under UP Co-Operative Act 1965 through its Chairman Kali Das Singh, S/o Munna Lal Singh, Resident of Y-2215 Awas Vikash Kalyanpur Kanpur City (Uttar Pradesh).

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. J.P. Singh, Advocate Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha, Advocate Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Samrendra Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Respondent Nos. 1,2 and 9 : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Harish Kumar, Advocate Mr. Alok Chandra, Advocate For the Respondent Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 : Mr. Waliur Rahman, Advocate Mr. Nishant Kumar Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA CAV JUDGMENT Patna High Court MA No.589 of 2021 dt.02-08-2023

Date : 02-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed for

setting aside the order dated 04.10.2021 passed in the Title Suit

No. 625 of 2019 by the learned Additional Sub-Judge- 1, Saran

at Chapra, whereby the petition filed under Section 94 read with

Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC by the plaintiff/ appellant for grant

of temporary injunction to restrain the defendants / respondents

from transferring suit property has been rejected.

3. The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit and

defendant - respondent No. 1, namely, M/S Mitra Mandal

Sangathan is an Association of person (AOP) formed for the

purpose of purchase and sale of land and it has to act through its

president. The defendant / respondent Nos. 2 to 8 are its founder

members. Members of defendant No. 1 appointed defendant -

respondent No. 2 as its President. On reference made by BIFR

for winding up sick company, namely, M/S Saran Engineering

Company Ltd., Mis. Company Application No. 06 / 1995 was

registered by Allahabad High Court and the company Judge

appointed official liquidator who directed for its auction sale of

immovable and movable properties. Defendant No. 1, M/S

Mitra Mandal Sansthan submitted its tender by depositing a

draft of Rs. 5 lac dated 06.01.2004, participated in public Patna High Court MA No.589 of 2021 dt.02-08-2023

auction held on 07.01.2004 in open Court of learned Company

Judge, Allahabad High Court and offered highest amount of Rs.

67 Lac for lot No. 1 property i.e. for land and building of the

factory of M/S Saran Engineering Company Ltd. in open bid

which was accepted and was provisionally confirmed the sale in

its favour by directing the purchaser defendant no. 1 to deposit

31 lacs within 2 months and remaining 31 lacs was to be paid on

the date when plant and machinery be removed by M/S Gunjan

Trading Company who had purchased the plant and Machinery

i.e. Lot No. 2 of M/S Saran Engineering Company Ltd. It was

also stated that until payment is made the purchaser defendant

no. 1 was not entitled to deal with the property.

4. M/S Mitra Mandal Sangathan (defendant no. 1)

did not have enough capital to pay the said sale consideration

amount, accordingly, approached the plaintiff / appellant to pay

Rs. 23.45 lacs (i.e. 35% of total sale consideration of Rs. 67 lacs

) to defendant-respondent No. 1 for which the defendant -

respondent No.1 through defendant- respondent No. 2 offered to

transfer 35% ownership in the share of land and building of M/S

Saran Engineering Ltd. purchased by M/S Mitra Mandal

Sangathan in Court sale. Accordingly, an agreement dated

07.04.2004 was executed. The plaintiff-appellant made payment Patna High Court MA No.589 of 2021 dt.02-08-2023

through five demand drafts and cash of Rs. 27,500/- for total Rs.

11,72,500/-. The drafts were made in favour of official

liquidator, Allahabad High Court which was half of Rs. 23.45

lacs and gave the same to defendant-respondent No. 2 who

deposited the same with official liquidator, Allahabad High

Court and the said fact is mentioned in the said Agreement.

5. The plaintiff - appellant claimed that soon

thereafter he paid remaining amount i.e. Rs. 11,72,500/- to

defendant - respondent No. 2 in cash on different dates in

November and December, 2005 in 3 installment for payment of

balance sale consideration by defendant-respondent No. 1 to

official liquidator. The defendant-respondent No. 1 paid Rs. 31

lacs on 03.01.2006 with the official liquidator, Allahabad High

Court which includes the payment of Rs. 11,72,500/- made by

plaintiff - appellant to defendant-respondent No. 2.

6. The learned Company Judge vide order dated

08.02.2006 confirmed the sale in favour of defendant-

respondent No. 1. On misrepresentation that M/S Mitra Mandal

Sangathan is a sister concern of M/S Gunjan Trading Company

represented by Raj Kumar Agarwal, the sale deed dated

08.06.2007 was executed in the name of M/S Mitra Mandal

Sansthan as sister concern of M/S Gunjan Trading Company Patna High Court MA No.589 of 2021 dt.02-08-2023

represented by Raj Kumar Agarwal. M/S Mitra Mandal

Sansthan got registered itself under U.P. Society Registration

Act on 24.08.2016. A dispute of management started and the

competent authority affirmed that defendant -respondent No. 2

is the Chairman of the society and defendant - respondent nos. 3

to 8 are members and, accordingly, the land and building was

handed over to defendant - respondent No. 2.

7. It is further claimed that the appellant was

waiting for the resolution of dispute regarding the removal of

cloud over the title of defendant No. 9 and in 2019 all the

disputes regarding title, ownership and possession of defendant

No. 9 was settled by competent authority and official liquidator.

In 2019, the plaintiff - appellant asked defendant No. 2 to

honour and abide by the terms and conditions of the agreement

and requested to demarcate his 35% share and hand over the

land and building falling under his share but the defendant No. 2

avoided to specify the share and handover the same and

consequently, the appellant filed the aforesaid suit.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

the trial Court failed to appreciate that the appellant approached

the Court to enforce the contract rather than receiving mere

monetary consideration. The appellant shall suffer irreparable Patna High Court MA No.589 of 2021 dt.02-08-2023

injury if the relief of temporary injunction is not granted.

9. He further submits that if temporary injunction is

not granted transfer of suit property to third party would result

in complication and multiplicity of proceeding by inclusion of

many persons. On 09.10.2021 after rejection of injunction

petition by trial court on 04.10.2021, defendant - respondent

No. 2 is in haste has started selling the land and executed 8 sale

deed of disputed land. The trial court has not considered that the

appellant has a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience

lay in favour of the plaintiff and if injunction is not granted, the

appellant would suffer irreparable injury. The learned trial Court

vide order dated 14.11.2019 passed an order of status quo till

filing of show cause by defendants. The defendant-respondent

Nos. 2 and 5 filed show cause / written statement stating that on

failure to make payment of balance amount, the agreement

stood automatically terminated and suit was barred by

limitation.

10. The learned trial Court held that the execution

of agreement is an admitted document but injunction petition

was rejected primarily on the ground that since the respondent

states that remaining balance amount was not paid, the

agreement stands terminated and under such circumstances, the Patna High Court MA No.589 of 2021 dt.02-08-2023

appellant does not have a prima facie case and if injunction is

not granted, the plaintiff-appellant will not suffer irreparable

injury as he may be compensated in terms of money.

11. Further, he has submitted that it is well settled

that when lis is admitted then it is the duty of the court to

preserve the subject matter of the dispute by an interim order so

that it can be available at the time of adjudication.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted

that in the present case the plaintiff has prima facie case and if

the temporary injunction is not granted by restraining the

defendant then subject matter of dispute will not available for

adjudication in view of the conduct of the defendants who

transferred the suit land in haste. There is a disputed question to

be tried in the suit.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant has further

submitted that respondent no. 3 who was the Secretary of the

said AOP has categorically accepted the share of the appellant in

the learned trial court. It is also submitted that the appellant also

made payment of Rs. 16 lac through draft to the labour Union of

Marhoura and distributed 56 lac as cost among them for

vacating the land of the said company for which a

certificate was issued to him by the G. M. of the said company. Patna High Court MA No.589 of 2021 dt.02-08-2023

14. He has further submitted that after rejection of

injunction petition by the learned trial court on 04.08.2021 the

defendant respondent no. 2 has started transferring the suit land

and has executed eight sale deeds. Status quo order with respect

to suit property was passed by this Court vide order dated

11.08.2022 and the same has been continued during pendency of

this case vide order dated 25.08.2022.

15. He has next submitted that respondent no. 2

filed a petition under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC before the trial court

to linger the case which was rejected vide order dated

23.03.2023. Respondent no. 2 sought time for filing Revision

against the said order dated 23.03.2023, but no revision has

been filed till date. Respondent no. 2 is trying to create

hindrance in disposal of the suit. Respondent no. 2 has sold

more than 10 bighas of valuable land from the road side out of

total 23 bighas in violation of clause 6 of the said agreement

between the parties.

16. Further, he has submitted that if the appellant

did not pay the balance amount then why the respondent no. 2

did not serve him any reminder or notice for said payment and

how did he succeed in obtaining the said auction. The appellant

fulfilled his obligation towards the agreement but respondent Patna High Court MA No.589 of 2021 dt.02-08-2023

no. 2 wants to grab his share.

17. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents

has submitted that respondents have become absolute owners

and title holders of the suit land and, accordingly, have every

right of transfer/alienate the suit property and manage the same

in their own way. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the

respondent nos. 1, 2 and 9, it is stated that the appellant ditched

the respondents making part payment of Rs. 11,75,500/- against

the agreed amount of Rs. 23.50 lac and rest half was not at all

paid and the paid amount would have been forfeited and the

appellant had got no claim whatsoever over the property under

auction from the respondents. The appellant failed to meet the

terms of agreement and not made the payments of money agreed

upon and by failing to do so the appellant has got no right or

interest in the suit property.

18. Further, it is submitted that appellant has no

prima facie case, balance of convenience is not in his favour and

no irreparable loss would be cause, if temporary injunction is not

granted in his favour and learned court below rightly rejected the

temporary injunction petition filed on behalf of appellant. He has

further submitted that in the suit for specific performance

temporary injunction may be granted only in exceptional case

only.

Patna High Court MA No.589 of 2021 dt.02-08-2023

19. Further, it is submitted that respondent no. 2

under RTI has submitted an application in the office of Official

Liquidator, Allahabad who informed the respondent no. 2 that

demand draft as claimed by the appellant had not been encashed

and credited in the Official Liquidator, Allahabad. Thus, the

appellant has not invested a single penny against the property

under consideration.

20. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and on perusal of material on record, it appears that in the

affidavit dated 25.11.2014 of Kali Das Singh (respondent no. 2)

before the High Court at Allahabad in paragraph 14 categorical

stated that in his efforts to raise the said amount, the deponent

entered into an agreement with Ravi Poddar son of Sri Shiv

Bhagwan Poddar agreeing to 35 per cent share of the land and

building purchased by M/S Mitra Mandal Sangthan in auction

conducted by the Hon'ble High Court on 07.01.2004. In

exchange of the said share Mr. Ravi Poddar was to pay Rs.

23.45 lacs through drafts and cash. At the time of executing the

said agreement Sri Ravi Poddar paid a total of Rs. 11,72,500/-

through 5 different drafts drawn in favour of Official Liquidator

including a sum of Rs. 27,500/- which was paid to the deponent

in cash. Since the deponent was able to raise a sum of Rs. Patna High Court MA No.589 of 2021 dt.02-08-2023

11,72,500/- by 7.04.2004 he deposited the same before the

official liquidator even though M/S Gunjan Trading Company

by that time had not removed the plant and machinery as

directed by the Hon'ble Court. A true copy of the agreement

dated 07.04.2004 is annexed as Annexure 6 to this affidavit."

21. In paragraph 16 of written statement filed on

behalf of defendant no. 2 he has admitted to the effect that

plaintiff voluntarily deposited draft and cash Rs. 11,72,000/-

only to the liquidators on 02.04.2004. Then thereafter failed to

pay rest amount out of Rs. 23.45 lacs to the liquidation. The

defendant no. 2 requested him to pay rest amount, but he

refused to pay and did not pay rest amount to the liquidator. The

defendant no. 2 paid the amount. The plaintiff himself broken

the terms of agreement and withdrawn from the alleged

agreement.

22. The law regarding grant of temporary

injunction and interlocutory order is covered by Order 39 of the

CPC. It is now well settled that before a court grants a

temporary injunction, it needs to be satisfied that a person

seeking an injunction has a prima facie case in his favour and

that balance of convenience and irreparable injury also lies in

his favour.

Patna High Court MA No.589 of 2021 dt.02-08-2023

23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kishoresinh

Ratansinh Jadeja v. Maruti Corpn, (2009) 11 SCC 229 held that

it is well established that while passing an interim order of

injunction under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the Court is

required to consider:

(i) whether there is a prima facie case in favour of

the plaintiff;

(ii) whether the balance of convenience is in favour

of passing the order of injunction; and

(iii) whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable

injury if an order of injunction would not be passed as prayed

for.

24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Hazrat Surat Shah Urdu Education Society Vs. Abdul Saheb

reported in 1988 (4) Judgments Today 232 : MANU/ SC/0651/

1988 observed that no temporary injunction should be issued

unless the three essential ingredients are made out, namely (1)

Prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience (iii) irreparable

injury which could not be compensated in terms of money. If a

party fails to make out any of the three ingredients he would not

be entitled to the injunction and the Court will be justified in

declining to issue injunction.

Patna High Court MA No.589 of 2021 dt.02-08-2023

25. The word 'prima facie case' apparently

indicates something which at first impression makes out a

triable case. The term 'prima facie case' should not be confused

with the term 'prima facie title' which has to be established at

the trial upon permitting the parties to lead evidence. Thus, it

means a substantial question which has been raised and which

upon first sight needs to be investigated and decided on merits.

26. The word 'balance of convenience' denotes that

the court must be satisfied that the comparative mischief and

hardship which is likely to be caused to the person seeking

injunction is more than the inconvenience likely to be caused to

the other party by granting such injunction.

27. The word 'irreparable injury' guides the court to

be satisfied that the refusal to grant injunction would result in

such injury which cannot be compensated in term of costs or

otherwise and the person seeking injunction needs to be

protected from the consequences of apprehended injury.

28. While dealing with aforesaid three ingredients,

the court must refrain from holding a mini trial. The court

should make an endeavor to test the relevant pleadings in the

light of the principles as noted above and if it finds that there is

a contestable issue which requires evidence of the parties to be Patna High Court MA No.589 of 2021 dt.02-08-2023

decided and balance of convenience and irreparable injury is in

favour of the party seeking the injunction then the status be

preserved, as at the initial stage the rights of the parties are in an

inchoate stage. The court would require the evidence to

determine the rights of the parties which can only be crystallized

after trial and can enable the court to form a definite opinion

whether the plaintiff has a valid right or interest to pass a decree

in his favour or not.

29. Considerations of equity and interests of justice

would justify preservation of status quo in respect of corpus of

the dispute. This is simply because, if ultimately, the case of the

plaintiff is found to be without merit, the defendant could deal

with property as it chooses and also be adequately re-

compensated for the prejudice, if any, which has been caused by

its inability to do so in the interregnum whereas, if the status of

the property, whether in respect of title or possession, alters

during the pendency of lis, the resultant prejudice to the

plaintiff might be irremediable. Principles of balance of

convenience too, therefore, normally justify maintenance of the

status quo during the pendency of the litigation.

30. In Dalpat Kumar & Anr. Vs. Prahlad Singh

& Ors. reported in (1992) 1 SCC 719, the Hon'ble Supreme Patna High Court MA No.589 of 2021 dt.02-08-2023

Court has held that Rule 1 primarily concerned with the

preservation of property in dispute till legal rights are

adjudicated. Injunction is a judicial process by which a party is

required to do or to refrain from doing any particular act. It is in

the nature of preventive relief to a litigant to prevent future

possible injury. In other words, the Court, on exercise of power

of granting ad interim injunction, is to preserve the subject

matter of the suit in the status quo for the time being. Grant of

injunction is a discretionary relief. The exercise thereof is

subject to the Court satisfying that (1) there is serious disputed

question to be tried in the suit and that an act, on the facts before

the Court, there is probability of his being entitled to the relief

asked for by the plaintiff/ defendants, (2) the court's interference

is necessary to protect the party from the species of injury. In

other words, irreparable injury or damage would ensue before

the legal right would be established at trial; and (3) that the

comparative hardship or mischief or inconvenience which is

likely to occur from withholding the injunction will be greater

than that would be likely to arise from granting it.

31. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that there

should be prima facie case in favour of applicants which needs

adjudication at the trial. The existence of the prima facie right Patna High Court MA No.589 of 2021 dt.02-08-2023

and infraction of the enjoyment of his property or right is a

condition for the grant of temporary injunction. Prima Facie

case is not to be confused with prima facie title which has to be

established, on evidence at the trial.

32. This Court in Dular Chand Sah & Ors. Vs.

Devnath Sah & Ors. reported in MANU/BH/0794/2015

observed as follows:-

" The person who is seeking injunction has to

satisfy the Court three ingredients, namely, prima facie case,

balance of convenience and irreparable loss. If any of the

ingredients is missing the Court would refuse to grant

injunction. Satisfaction of prima facie case by itself is not

sufficient to grant injunction. The Court has to satisfy itself that

non-interference by the Court would result in irreparable injury

to the party seeking relief and there is no other remedy available

to the party except one to grant injunction and he needs

protection from the consequences of apprehended injury or

dispossession. Irreparable injury, however, does not mean that

there must be no physical possibility of repairing the injury but

means only that the injury must be a material one, namely, one

that cannot be adequately compensated in terms of money. Even

where prima facie case is made out in favour of the plaintiff, the Patna High Court MA No.589 of 2021 dt.02-08-2023

Court will refuse temporary injunction if the injury suffered by

the plaintiff on account of refusal of temporary injunction was

not irreparable...".

33. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ambalal

Sarabhai Enterprise Ltd Vs. KS Infra Space LLP Ltd.

reported in (2020) 5 SCC 410 observed in para 15 & 16 as

follows-

"15. Chapter VII, Section 36 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') provides for grant of preventive relief. Section 37 provides that temporary injunction in a suit shall be regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure. The grant of relief in a suit for specific performance is itself a discretionary remedy. A plaintiff seeking temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance will therefore have to establish a strong primafacie case on basis of undisputed facts. The conduct of the plaintiff will also be a very relevant consideration for purposes of injunction. The discretion at this stage has to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily.

16. The cardinal principles for grant of temporary injunction were considered in Dalpat Kumar vs. Prahlad Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 719, observing as follows :

"5...Satisfaction that there is a prima facie case by itself is not sufficient to grant injunction. The Court further has to satisfy that non-interference by the Court would result in "irreparable injury" to the party seeking relief and that there is no other remedy available to the party except one to grant injunction and he needs protection from the consequences of apprehended injury or dispossession. Irreparable injury, however, does not mean that there must be no physical possibility of repairing the injury, but means only that the injury must be a material one, namely one that cannot be adequately compensated by way of damages. The third condition also Patna High Court MA No.589 of 2021 dt.02-08-2023

is that "the balance of convenience" must be in favour of granting injunction. The Court while granting or refusing to grant injunction should exercise sound judicial discretion to find the amount of substantial mischief or injury which is likely to be caused to the parties, if the injunction is refused and compare it with that which is likely to be caused to the other side if the injunction is granted. If on weighing competing possibilities or probabilities of likelihood of injury and if the Court considers that pending the suit, the subject matter should be maintained in status quo, an injunction would be issued. Thus the Court has to exercise its sound judicial discretion in granting or refusing the relief of ad interim injunction pending the suit."

34. From the material on record as discussed

above, it appears that it is not in dispute that an agreement dated

07.04.2004 was executed between the plaintiff/ appellant and

defendant- respondent no. 2 in which the part payment of Rs.

11,75,500/- out of Rs. 23.50 lac had been stated as paid amount.

The question with respect to payment of remaining amount is in

dispute whether the same has been paid by petitioner to

defendant-respondent no. 2 or not. There is no provision in the

agreement for forfeiture of paid amount if further balance

amount is not paid. The said question is a matter of trial. The

payment of Rs. 11,75,500/- by petitioner to defendant no. 2 has

been admitted by respondents in various documents including in

written statement, counter affidavit, affidavit submitted before

Allahabad High Court also. The said agreement is the basis of Patna High Court MA No.589 of 2021 dt.02-08-2023

suit. The admitted payment of 50% amount of total agreed

amount shows that petitioner has strong prima facie case in his

favour. Sale of about 10 acre land out of 23 acres suit land

through 8 sale deed just after dismissal of injunction petition

itself shows the intention and conduct of respondent no. 2. After

accepting the part payment of Rs. 11,75,500/- by petitioner at

various forum now denying the same also shows the conduct of

respondent no. 2 during the present proceeding.

35. In writ application CWJC No. 19782 of 2021

arising out of same Title Suit No. 625 of 2019, with consent of

all parties therein, the writ application was disposed of on

24.11.2022 with a direction to learned trial court to dispose of

said title suit within a year from the date of communication of

the order. It is also stated that both the parties submits that this

application may be disposed of accordingly and they undertaken

to cooperate the trial court to dispose of the suit within the

stipulated period. It appears from the report of trial court that the

case is still pending for appearance of parties.

36. Except respondent no. 4, other respondents

have appeared in this Court in this case and they are expected to

cooperate the trial court to adjudicate the suit itself within the

time fixed.

Patna High Court MA No.589 of 2021 dt.02-08-2023

37. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the

law discussed above, in my considered opinion the petitioner

has strong prima facie case, balance of convenience lies in his

favour and irreparable loss would be caused if temporary

injunction is not granted in favour of plaintiff/ appellant. This

Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be allowed. The impugned

order is, accordingly, set aside and this Miscellaneous Appeal is

allowed.

38. Litigation between the parties are pending

before the learned trial court, this court at this stage, refrain

from returning findings of facts or express any opinion on

merits of the suit. Nothing in the present order shall be deemed

or construed as any expression of opinion or observation by this

court at the final hearing of the suit which naturally will have to

be decided on its own merit. This Court has already given

direction to conclude the trial within one year as stated earlier

and the same is reiterated.

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J) khushbu/-

AFR/NAFR                AFR
CAV DATE                11.07.2023
Uploading Date          02.08.2023
Transmission Date