Krishnanand Kumar @ Ashok Kumar and Hriday Narayan Kumar vs Shambhu Kunwar @ Kunar and Others

Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellants. No one appears on behalf of the respondents. The appeal is directed against the order dated 24th of April, 2007 passed by the 1st Subordinate Judge, Buxar in Title Suit No.129 of 2006 rejecting the application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs (appellants herein) under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the CPC (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") for grant of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land.

In short, the facts of the case is that the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that three sale deeds executed by the defendant 1st party in favour of the defendant 2nd, 3rd and 4th party with respect to the lands mentioned in Schedules 1, 2 and 3 respectively are forged and fabricated. Further case of the plaintiffs is that the defendant 1st party had no title to execute the sale deeds in favour of the concerned defendants. To the contrary, the plaintiffs have claimed title and possession over the lands in question. The defendants, on the other hand, claimed title after purchase of the lands by the defendant 1st party. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the CPC was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs for restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession as claimed by the plaintiffs over the suit land.

The court below upon considering the aforesaid petition and the rejoinder of the defendants did not find any valid case for grant of injunction, as prayed for. Accordingly, the said injunction petition of the plaintiffs was rejected by the order under appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the court below did not consider the case of the plaintiffs in correct perspective and as such, the court below instead of appreciating that the title of the plaintiffs could be traced out at least from the compromise decree in Title (Partition) Suit No.41 of 1968, but the same was not correctly appreciated. Notwithstanding the above, learned counsel submits that during the pendency of this appeal, this Court, vide order dated 29.8.2007 passed on the injunction petition vide I.A. No.4737 of 2007 filed by the plaintiffs, directed the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the suit property during the pendency of the said application, which has remained pending for consideration till date.

Considering the submissions of the appellants as also in the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, it is expedient in the interest of justice that Title Suit No.129 of 2006 pending in the court of the 1st Subordinate Judge, Buxar be disposed of without delay instead of interfering with the order under appeal.

It is, accordingly, directed that the aforesaid title suit be disposed of expeditiously, preferably within six months from today. Till disposal of the title suit, the interim order directing for maintaining status quo with respect to the suit lands shall continue. The appeal stands disposed of, as indicated above. No costs.