Mohd. Sarbar and Another vs Sonu Vishwakarma and Others

R.S. Jha, J.—Heard on the question of admission.

The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 12.11.2013 whereby the court below has granted interim injunction and directed the parties to maintain status quo and the order dated 17.2.2014 rejecting the application for modification of the stay order.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the suit filed by respondent nos. 1 to 3 the court below by order dated 12.11.2013 has confirmed the order of interim injunction granted earlier directing the parties to maintain status quo and not to undertake any further construction activities. The petitioners, thereafter filed an application u/s 94 Read with Section 151 CPC, for modification of the said order which application has been rejected on 17.2.2014. It is further submitted that the petitioners are bonafide purchasers and have commenced construction on the land in dispute, however in view of the interim order of injunction passed by the court below, the petitioners are unable to construct the slab. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are willing to give an undertaking that in case they are permitted to undertake construction on the land and thereafter the suit is ultimately allowed, the petitioners would demolish the construction undertaken by them and shall hand over vacant possession. It is submitted that inspite of the aforesaid undertaking, the court below has rejected the application of the petitioners for modification.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is observed that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff alleging the property in dispute to be a joint family property and in such circumstances as the rights of the parties are yet to be determined which would also reflect on the validity of the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioners therefore as all the three factors necessary for granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff are established, the court below has granted injunction. The court below has further observed that it would not be in the interest of the parties to permit the petitioners to undertake construction on the land and change its status to the detriment of the rights of the plaintiffs. The court below has also observed that for proper proceedings in the matter, status of the property has to be maintained so that appropriate relief can be given to the plaintiff. The reasons given by the court below are cogent and reasonable and are based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record.

In the circumstances I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order warranting interference by this Court. The petition, filed by the petitioners, being meritless is accordingly dismissed.

It is, however, observed that the petitioners would be at liberty to move the trial court for early and expeditious decision of the suit and in case the petitioners do so, the court below shall make all possible efforts to decide the suit at an early date.

With the aforesaid observation the petition, filed by the petitioners stands dismissed.