- (1.) THE matter has been placed before this Bench for consideration of the second stay application bearing number 16752/2011 as moved in S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 270/2001. From the office endorsements, it appears that the second stay application was filed way back on 01.10.2009. However, it carried some defects and ultimately, came to be registered on the regular side in the year 2011.
(2.) IN this second stay application, the plaintiff-appellant has made the submissions that he is in possession of the land in dispute that was allegedly purchased by him through agreement to sell dated 27.08.1984. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 (the defendants of the suit) sold out the land in dispute to Dhanna Ram and Lal Chand, sons of Mani Ram through a registered sale deed dated 06.07.2009. The alleged vendees have been referred in the application as respondents Nos. 5 and 6 and it is alleged that after purchasing the land, these persons were interfering in the possession of the appellant and were required to be restrained from such interference. The appellant has prayed in this application that during the pendency and until final disposal of the appeal, the respondents may be restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession and may further be restrained from alienating the land in dispute or getting the revenue record changed. In this application, filed way back on 01.10.2009, there has not been any interim order passed in favour of the appellant. Perusal of the record of the regular appeal makes out that on 01.10.2009, the appellant moved two other applications: one, under Order I Rule 10 CPC (IA No. 13834/2009) and another, under Order VI Rule 17 CPC (IA No. 14640/2009). In substance, by way of these applications, the appellant asserted that during the pendency of the appeal, the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 have sold the land in question to the said Shri Dhanna Ram and Lal Chand and it was prayed that the said vendees be ordered to be joined as respondents Nos. 5 and 6 in the appeal and the appellant may be allowed to take the grounds in relation to the sale deed said to have been executed during the pendency of the appeal and to seek consequential relief of declaring it null and void. What transpires from the record is that the said applications (IA Nos. 13834/2009 and 14640/2009) were dismissed in default on 04.11.2009. However, it appears from a copy of the order dated 11.03.2010 as passed in Restoration Application No. 14/2010 that a co-ordinate Bench considered the reasons stated in the restoration application and ordered that this first appeal bearing number 270/2001 be restored to its original number and position. Looking to the position of the record, it can be assumed that as a consequence of the order dated 11.03.2010, the proceedings in the appeal are relegated to the position obtainable before passing of the order on the aforesaid applications (IA Nos. 13834/2009 and 14640/2009); and the applications would call for consideration appropriately. However, so far the second stay application is concerned, the position obtaining as at present is that the alleged purchasers are not the parties to the appeal. Therefore, any prayer in this appeal qua the said respondents, in the given status of record, could only be considered premature.
(3.) MOREOVER , it is noticed that the first stay application as moved in this matter was rejected on 24.11.2008 after this Court found the prayer made in terms of Order XLI Rule 5 CPC for staying the operation, effect and execution of the impugned judgment and decree to be entirely baseless when the suit for specific performance had been dismissed by the Trial Court. The submission was made at that stage too that status quo in relation to the property in dispute may be ordered to be maintained and else, the respondents might try to dispossess the appellant. It was noticed that nothing co- related with such submission was stated in the affidavit filed in support of the stay application and though the appellant was directed to file specific affidavit stating the position of the land in question, such an affidavit was not filed. Today , again, similar nature prayer is repeated that status quo may be ordered to be maintained. This Court is unable to find any basis for granting such a relief at the present stage. Some uncertain nature apprehensions have been stated qua such persons who are not the parties to the appeal. Yet further, while stating such apprehensions, the application was filed on 01.10.2009, supported by an affidavit sworn on 20.09.2009. Thus, nearly three years back, this application seeking temporary injunction was moved and the application has remained pending for all this time without any interim order. The relief of temporary injunction being essentially that of emergent nature, when not granted for nearly three years, there appears no rea son to pass any such order now at this stage. In view of what has been noticed, observed and discussed hereinabove, the second stay application (No. 16752/2011) stands rejected. ;