RAJ KUMAR BARI Vs. SHIV RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal has been filed on 12.8.2010 assailing the Order passed on 6.4.2009, which reads thus:- Learned counsel for the defendant nos. 1-7 seeks two weeks time to file written statement and vakalatnama in his favour. Let the same be so done. Replication thereto, if any, be filed by the plaintiff within two weeks thereafter. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the defendant nos. 8-28 are the proforma defendants. However, the service report in respect of defendant nos. 8-27 is still awaited. The representative of defendant no. 28 is present in court and he seeks two weeks time to file the written statement. The written statement on behalf of defendant no. 28 shall be filed within two weeks from today. The plaintiff shall take the necessary steps to serve the unserved defendant nos. 8-27 by filing process fee and registered A.D. covers within one week. List this matter before the Joint Registrar for completion of service and for admission/denial of documents on 22nd May, 2009. I.A. No. 1014/2009 Learned counsel for the defendant nos. 1-7 who are contesting defendants seeks ten days time to file reply to this application. List this application for disposal on 13th July, 2009. In the meanwhile, the parties shall maintain status quo in respect of the property in question as of today.

(2.) The Appeal is accompanied by an application CM No.15238/2010 praying that this Court stay the operation of the impugned order dated 6th April, 2009 passed by the Learned Single Judge and pass any other further orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) We fail to perceive what purpose would be served in staying the impugned Order which would be of any advantage to the Appellants. As we see it, it would prolong the litigation and this is the antithesis of what learned counsel for the Appellants has endeavoured to impress before us.