I had contest a case for permanent injunction to the effect that the defendant shall not illegally and forcibly oust the plabtiff from the joint enjoyment and joint possession from the property which is joint hindu family coparcenary property and shall not damage or cause any loss to the property in dispute being birth right in the said joint hindu family ancestral coparcenary property. THE SAID CASE WAS DECIDED IN MY FAVOUR ON 23-12-2013 BUT THE COPY OF THE ORDER WAS RECIEVED ON 17-3-2014.
Now the other party has appealed and the ADJ has ordered as follows:
Present: Advocate, counsel for appellant
Present appeal received by entrustment. It be checked and registered. Since there are arguable points, the present appeal is admitted. Learned counsel for the appellant also argued on the application U/O 41 Rule 5 CPC for staying operation of impugned judgment and decree as the said appeal is likely to be accepted, keeping in view the reasons mentioned in the grounds of appeal. He also vehemently argued that the very suit for permanent injunction filed by the respondent/plaintiff was not maintainable against the appellant as the plaintiff sought the relief of injunction against the appellant on the allegations that he was karta of the ancestral/coparcenary property. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on the authority in this regard Sunil Kumar Vs. Ram Parkash,1988(1) HLR 573. He further argued that the respondent/plaintiff has threatened to execute the said judgment and decree to interfere in the exclusive possession of appellant, taking undue advantage of the same and if the respondent succeeds in interfering or dispossessing the appellant, then irreparable loss will be caused to him.
After hearing the contentions of learned counsel for appellant and perusing the judgment of Ld Lower court and grounds of appeal, I am of the considered opinion that in view of ratio of authority Sunil Kumar ( supra ), there are sufficient ground to stay the operation of impugned judgment and decree as substantial loss may result to the appellant if respondent/plaintiff is able to execute the impugned judgment and decree during the pendency of present appeal as same will frustrate the very purpose of filing of appeal in hand. Thus,it will be expedient and in interest of justice, if the operation of impugned judgment and decree is stayed during pendency of present appeal. Accordingly, the
operation of impugned judgment and decree is stayed till further orders.
Notice of appeal be issued to the respondent for 7.5.2014. Record of Lower Court also be requisitioned for the said date.
Sanjiv Joshi/ADJ
Please quote the possible citation on the basis to proceed a head
Thanks
R.Singh
