Patna High Court
Om Prakash vs Smt. Sanjana Kumari @ Sanjana Devi on 30 January, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1382 of 2024
======================================================
Om Prakash Son of Late Ram Devan Prasad @ Ramdewan Prasad Resident
of Village-Alawalpur, Manorah, P.S.-Punpun, P.O.-Punpun, District-Patna, at
present residing at Punpun Bazar, P.O and P.S. Punpun, District-Patna(Bihar)
Pin Code-804453.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Sanjana Kumari @ Sanjana Devi Wife of Late Navin Kumar @ Navin
Yadav, D/o Sri Om Prakash and Usha Devi Resident of Village- Alawalpur,
Manorah, P.O and P.S.- Punpun, District- Patna (Bihar), Pin Code- 804453.
2. Juli Devi Wife of Sri Ashok Verma resident of Village- Alawalpur, Manorah,
P.S and P.O.- Punpun, District-Patna, Pin Code 804453, At present Residing
at present residing at Punpun Bazar, P.O and P.S.- Punpun, District-
Patna(Bihar) Pin Code- 804453
3. Milli Devi Wife of Sri Ranjit Verma resident of Village- Alawalpur,
Manorah, P.S and P.O.- Punpun, District-Patna, Pin Code 804453, At present
Residing at present residing at Punpun Bazar, P.O and P.S.- Punpun, District-
Patna(Bihar) Pin Code- 804453
4. Dolly Kumari Daughter of Sri Om Prakash resident of Village- Alawalpur,
Manorah, P.S and P.O.- Punpun, District-Patna, Pin Code 804453, At present
Residing at present residing at Punpun Bazar, P.O and P.S.- Punpun, District-
Patna(Bihar) Pin Code- 804453
5. Archana Kumari Daughter of Sri Om Prakash resident of Village-
Alawalpur, Manorah, P.S and P.O.- Punpun, District-Patna, Pin Code
804453, At present Residing at present residing at Punpun Bazar, P.O and
P.S.- Punpun, District-Patna(Bihar) Pin Code- 804453
6. Aditya Kumar Son of Sri Om Prakash resident of Village- Alawalpur,
Manorah, P.S and P.O.- Punpun, District-Patna, Pin Code 804453, At present
Residing at present residing at Punpun Bazar, P.O and P.S.- Punpun, District-
Patna(Bihar) Pin Code- 804453
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Digvijay Narayan Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 30-01-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and I intend
to dispose of the present petition at the stage of admission itself.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1382 of 2024 dt.30-01-2025
02. The present civil miscellaneous petition has been
filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting
aside the order dated 21.10.2024 passed by the learned Civil
Judge, Sr. Division, Masaurhi passed in Misc. Case No. 01 of
2021 arising out of Title Partition Suit No. 10 of 2020, whereby
and whereunder the learned trial court vacated the order of
injunction granted vide order dated 19.08.2023 against the
plaintiff/respondent.
03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
injunction order was granted on the application of the petitioner
who has filed the miscellaneous case before the learned trial
court for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree passed
in Title Partition Suit No. 10 of 2020 and in the misc. case it was
ordered that the plaintiff shall not create right over the suit
property in favour of third party by alienation or otherwise.
However, there was no injunction against the petitioner for not
alienating the suit property. For some exigency, the petitioner
was compelled to sell a part of the suit property and the learned
trial court, holding that the petitioner has violated the injunction
order, vacated the order of injunction dated 19.08.2023. The
said order could not be sustained as there was no order of
injunction against the petitioner.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1382 of 2024 dt.30-01-2025
04. Learned counsel further submits that the plaintiff
is the daughter of the petitioner and has filed the suit for
partition and got an ex parte decree in her favour during the
peak Covid-19 period. The Miscellaneous Case No. 01 of 2021
has been filed for setting aside the ex parte decree in Partition
Suit No. 10 of 2020. In that miscellaneous case, injunction has
been granted but the learned trial court has wrongly considered
that the petitioner was equally responsible for obeying the
orders of the court and he was duty bound to maintain the status
quo, still he violated the same. Learned counsel further submits
that as there has been no order against the petitioner, it was not
expected the petitioner would be held responsible in case of
alienation of the suit property. Therefore, the impugned order is
bad in the eyes of law and fit to be set aside. Learned counsel
further submits that in the said miscellaneous case, the evidence
of the petitioner is complete and the matter has been coming for
recording of evidence of the respondent.
05. Perused the record.
06. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
submission made behalf of the petitioner. When the learned trial
court passed the order for injunction under Section 151 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, the basic object for passing such order
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1382 of 2024 dt.30-01-2025
is for preservation of the suit property. When the petitioner
approached the trial court seeking injunction and the trial court
directed that until the disposal of the application to set aside the
ex parte decree and until the passing of the final decree, the
plaintiff shall not create right over the suit property in favour of
third party by alienation or otherwise, the same was on the
apprehension of the petitioner as well as court that third party
rights might be created and unnecessary complications would
arise in the suit which any prudent person would like to avoid.
The petitioner could not have taken advantage of the fact that
there was no direction to the petitioner to maintain status quo as
defendant and not to alienate the suit property. If the petitioner
went on to transfer the part of suit land, he himself gave a death
blow to the injunction order passed by the learned trial court. It
is trite to remind that one who seeks equity must do equity and
the learned trial court could not be faulted on this point when it
vacated the order of injunction granted in favour of the
petitioner finding him to be at fault for creating third party
interest in the suit property. For this reason, I do not find any
infirmity in the impugned order which requires interference of
this Court. Hence, the impugned order dated 21.10.2024 is
hereby affirmed.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1382 of 2024 dt.30-01-2025
07. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.
08. However, the learned trial court is directed to
expedite the hearing in Miscellaneous Case No. 01 of 2021
considering the fact that the said case has been filed for setting
aside the ex parte decree and even after lapse of four years, the
said case is still pending whereas the evidence of the petitioner
is complete and the matter has been coming up for recording the
evidence of the respondent and dispose of the same within three
months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this
order.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Ashish/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 04.02.2025
Transmission Date NA
