S.R. SAHU Vs. LAXMINARAYAN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the order dtd. 14/12/2023 passed in Civil Suit No.16-A/2023 by the 2nd Additional District Judge, District Bilaspur, whereby the application preferred by respondent No.1/plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Sec. 151 of the CPC was allowed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a Civil Suit on 1/2/2023 by making an averment inter alia that he had purchased the suit property through a registered sale deed executed by defendant No.2/appellant No.2 herein, namely Smt. Usha Sahu, on 31/3/2005. After the said purchase, his name has already been mutated in the revenue records. However, the Revenue Court, by misinterpreting a judgment passed in a different subject matter of the litigation i.e. for specific performance of contract filed by the plaintiff and one Ravi Prakash Sharma (Civil Suit No.168-A/2014, which was dismissed vide judgment dtd. 9/5/2017 passed by the 9th Additional District Judge), which was subsequently, affirmed by this Court in FA No.368/2017 vide judgment dtd. 14/9/2022, struck off the plaintiff's name from the revenue records. It was averred that the sale deed in question has not been declared null and void in any prior litigation and the plaintiff claims to be a bonafide purchaser. It was further averred that respondent had earlier filed Civil Suit No.322/2014 before the 7th Additional District Judge, which was dismissed for want of prosecution. The instant Civil Suit has been filed for partition and permanent injunction, wherein an interlocutory application was filed, which has been allowed by the impugned order. Hence, this Appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order is contrary to the settled principles of law. As the name of the defendant has already been mutated in the revenue records prior to the institution of the suit, which was filed on 1/2/2023, the trial Court ought to have maintained the status of the suit property as it existed on the date of institution of the suit. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order is not sustainable and thus, prays to allow the Appeal.