Sri Inderjeet Jassal and Others vs Sri Virendar Pal Singh and Others

V.K. Bist, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner directing the learned II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun to expedite and conclude the proceedings of O.S. No. 280 of 2008 including the interim relief application 6C-2.

Brief facts of the case as stated in the petition are that father of petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 purchased a land Khasra No. 131 from Sardar Hakam Singh vide sale deed dated 15.04.1971 registered on 06.05.1971 in the office of Sub Registrar, Dehradun. Possession of the said land was handed over to the father of petitioner No. 1 & 2. The respondent No. 1 instituted Original Suit No. 122 of 1975 in the court of learned District Judge, Dehradun for declaring sale deed dated 15.04.1971 null and void and also for declaration that sale deed dated 15.05.1971 in favour of defendant No. 1 i.e. father of petitioner No. 1 & 2 effective, valid and operative only to the extent of half undivided share i.e. 05 acre in plot No. 131. Original Suit No. 122 of 1975 filed by respondent No. 1 was dismissed on 17.06.1977 by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Dehradun. Aggrieved by the said order the respondent No. 1 filed a Civil Appeal No. 76 of 1977 before learned District Judge, Dehradun which was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by Additional Civil Judge, Dehradun was set aside. The suit of the plaintiff therein was decreed with proportionate cost in respect of the reliefs claimed in para 29 A thereof in the alternative and in para 29 B thereof of the plaint. The plaintiff''s suit for a declaration that sale deed dated 15.05.1971 in favour of defendant No. 1 therein is effective only to the extent of undivided share in plot No. 1 was decreed. It was further ordered and decreed that a permanent injunction was granted against the defendant No. 1 therein restraining the defendant No. 1 from making any construction in khasra plot No. 131 or in any way interfering with the possession of the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 therein in said plot No. 131. All other reliefs were refused. According to the aforesaid judgment half portion of the property in dispute i.e. Khasra No. 131 Garhi Cantt was of late Milkhi Ram Jassal (father of petitioner Nos. 1 & 2) and half portion was of respondent No. 1. Thereafter, Milkhi Ram Jassal expired on 29.01.1998 leaving behind him petitioner No. 1, 2 and late Satish Jassal as his sons and petitioner No. 3 to 5 as his daughter and Smt. Kaushalya Devi as his widow. Smt. Kaushalya Devi died on 04.09.1999 and Satish Jassal expired on 03.10.2005 leaving behind him petitioner Nos. 6, 7 and 8 as his legal heirs. The petitioner No. 1 representing all the petitioners met respondent No. 1 several times and requested for making partition of the property in dispute but respondent No. 1 refused to do so. Thereafter, when respondent No. 1 did not pay any heed to the request of the petitioners, the petitioners instituted Original Suit No. 280 of 2008 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div), Dehradun seeking the relief that property in question be partitioned and actual physical possession of half portion of property in dispute may be handed over to the petitioners. During the pendency of suit the respondent No. 2-Nirmal Singh died on 18.12.2009. A substitution application was moved by petitioners on 23.12.209 which is still pending and interim relief application No. 6C-2 is also pending. On 27.08.2008 learned District Judge passed direction in MCA No. 75 of 2008 for disposing of the interim relief application No. 6C-2 filed by the petitioner in the aforesaid suit expeditiously within a period of seven days from 08.09.2008 but learned II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun is not deciding the aforesaid applications as well as suit and the case is being adjourned for different reasons.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the judgment dated 23.05.1978 in Civil Appeal No. 76 of 1977 the trial court should not delay the proceedings and should decide the case expeditiously. He further submitted that due to the delay in deciding the aforesaid suit finally, the petitioners are facing hardship and are being harassed. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted that plaintiffs have no right, title and interest in the property in suit and written statement to this effect has already been filed.

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, this Court thinks it proper to issue direction to the trial court for early disposal of the case. Therefore, the trial court is directed to decide O.S. No. 280 of 2008 expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from today. With this direction, the writ petition is disposed of.