Dr. Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THE matter comes up on an application (No. 191/2015) filed by the respondents No. 16 to 18 in the present case in this Court on 08.10.2015, after giving copy thereof to the opposite counsel, Dr. Sachin Acharya on 08.10.2015 itself. No reply thereto has been filed by the plaintiff appellant, Smt. Sua Devi, who has filed the present suit and the present first appeal through her Power of Attorney, Mr.Badri Narayan Jat s/o. Shri Biram Ram Jat.
(2.) ALONGWITH the said application, the respondents No. 16 to 18 have filed a public notice purportedly published in Newspapers by the appellant through her Advocate, Mr. Natha Ram Choudhary on 26.09.2015, which is quoted below for ready reference: - Another copy of letter dated 29.09.2015 by the same Advocate addressed to the Manager, State Bank of India, Jodhpur is also annexed with the application, which is also quoted below for ready reference: - Briefly, it may be stated here that the suit was filed by Smt. Sua Devi through her Power of Attorney, Shri Badri Narayan Jat after about twenty years of the sale of the land in question in favour of the respondents No. 16 to 18, who are land developers, claiming that she had 1/3rd share in the landholding, and therefore, the sale itself was invalid. The suit No. 332/2014 -Smt. Suadevi Vs. Shravan Ram & Ors., however, came to be dismissed at the threshold on 20.10.2014 by the learned trial court, against which the present appeal was filed by the plaintiff -appellant Smt.Sua Devi through her Power of Attorney Shri Badri Narayan Jat. A blanket ad -interim stay order was granted by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 18.11.2014, which came to be modified by a detailed order passed by this Court, after hearing both the sides on 21.09.2015, and modifying the ex -parte order and referring to the earlier detailed order passed by another coordinate Bench of this Court dated 07.09.2015, this Court passed the following interim order on 21.09.2015, the relevant and operative portion of which is quoted below for ready reference: - "After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that any blanket order by the Court on such a claim of her share in the suit land raised by the plaintiff after 19 -20 years of the sale by the registered sale deed executed in favour of the respondents No. 16 to 18 may cause serious prejudice to the respondents, without any corresponding gain to the plaintiff -appellant, till her rights are decided by the learned trial court and a question mark is put on the sale deed executed in favour of the respondents. The development of the land in question, which has already taken place to the extent of 2/3rd or so, could not be stopped at this stage by the aforesaid blanket order. The said order therefore, deserves to be modified. The said order is modified accordingly and it is directed that any further development or alienation of the suit property upon this land of 7 Bigha 7 Biswa of land by the respondents No. 16 to 18 shall remain subject to the final decision of the suit itself. The stay application is accordingly disposed of with this modification. The present appeal may be listed for hearing in the month of January, 2016."
(3.) IT appears that the appellant -plaintiff to take undue advantage of the said interim order, published the aforesaid public notice quoted above in the newspapers and even went to the extent of informing the Bank with a request that any further transactions and giving of financial assistance, loans etc. with the construction of flats etc. on the said land would be at their own risk, which, inter alia, put the transactions and development of the land by the respondents No. 16 to 18 in a quandary and that is why the present application has been filed by them.;