- (1.) THIS miscellaneous appeal has been filed against the order dated 10.10.2007 passed by the Subordinate Judge -II, Dhanbad in Title (Partition) Suit No. 182 of 2007, allowing the application filed by the plaintiffs (respondents no. 1 and 2) under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and directing the parties to maintain status quo. Mr. J.K. Pasari, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that the court below should not have granted status quo as one co -sharer can sell his undivided share to other co -sharers. He further submitted that the plaintiffs claimed half share against defendants no. 1and 2 only.
(2.) MR . Rohit Roy, on the other hand, appearing for respondents no. 1 and 2 (plaintiffs) submitted that the case of the defendants no. 3 to 6 (appellants), inter alia, was that the plaintiffs and defendants no. 7 to 9 have relinquished their share. He further submitted that the respective shares of the parties are yet to be decided in the suit and that in view of the nature of the properties involved, if such sale is permitted, it will create complication and multiplicity of litigations. He relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot vs. Baldev Dass [(2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 488]. It appears that after hearing the parties, the court has found it fit that they should maintain status quo. The court has assigned reasons for such conclusion. In my opinion, no grounds are made out for interfering with the impugned order. Accordingly, this miscellaneous appeal is dismissed.
(3.) HOWEVER , the trial court will try to dispose of the suit itself expeditiously and preferably within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and the parties are directed to cooperate in early disposal of the suit.;