Uttarakhand High Court
Sumitra Devi vs Swaran Singh And Another on 30 January, 2023
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
Registrar's order with
Signatures
30.01.2023
WPMS No. 276 of 2023
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, Advocate for
the petitioner.
Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate for the
caveator.
With the consent of learned counsel
for the parties, the matter is taken up for
final disposal.
The case of the petitioner, who is a
defended in the Civil Suit No. 105 of 2017,
Sumitra Devi Vs. Swaran Singh and another,
it was a suit, which was instituted for
declaring the agreement to sale dated
31.03.2016, as null and void on the ground
that the plaintiff since being a bhumidhar
with non transferable rights, the property
could not have been sold. It was pleaded in
the plaint, that the plaintiff since was in the
need of money to meet up his personal
requirements, he had taken certain
advances from the defendant in order to
meet out certain needs, as expressed
therein, but, however, the suit in question
proceeded and was decreed by the learned
trial Court by the judgment dated
31.10.2022.
Being aggrieved against the said
judgment and decree, the defendant-
petitioner herein has preferred a Civil
Appeal No. 19 of 2022, Swaran Singh and
another v. Sumitra Devi, wherein he has
contended, that the agreement for sale to
transfer the land was ignoring the provisions
contained under Section 54 to be read with
Section 157A of UPZA & LR Act. The appeal
of the appellant-petitioner accompanied
with it an application for the grant of interim
order. The same has been rejected by the
impugned order against which the present
writ petition has been preferred.
The argument of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is, that in the
absence of there being grant of an interim
order as prayed for by the petitioner in the
writ petition, that the plaintiff-respondent
since being a decree holder may be
restrained from creating any third party
interest during the pendency of the suit.
The same has been declined and in that
eventuality if the decree holder plaintiff
proceeds to create any third party interest,
it would be creating more complexities to
the proceedings of the Civil Appeal which is
pending consideration before the Court of
Additional District Judge, Vikasnagar,
Dehradun.
In support of his contention, he had
made reference to number of judgments
before the appellate Court itself, which has
postulated that in a regular Appeal, which
stands admitted, there has had to be an
interim order, in order to protect the subject
matter of lis and further in order to curtail
the multiplicity of the proceedings which
may chance due to creation of third party
interest.
In that view of the matter, even this
Court is of the view that in the absence of
there being an interim order during the
pendency of an appeal, if the plaintiff-
decree holder (respondent herein) proceeds
to create a third party interest during the
pendency of an Appeal, it may render the
appeal itself infructuous or rather it may
lead to multiplying the litigation by creation
of any third party interest.
In that eventuality, without
expressing any opinion on the merits of
matter, this writ petition is being disposed
of with a request to the Additional District
Judge, Vikasnagar, Dehradun to make all
efforts to decide the Civil Appeal No. 19 of
2022, as expeditiously as possible, but not
later than six months from the date of
production of certified copy of the order.
For a period of six months, the
parties to the Appeal are restrained to
create any third party interest over the
property in dispute, which is the subject
matter before the trial Court.
Subject to the aforesaid, the writ
petition stands disposed of.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
Vacation Judge
30.01.2023
Mahinder/
