BAL KISHAN BHATIA Vs. R G BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner/Plaintiff has assailed the Order of the Additional District Judge dated 27.2.1998 in this Revision. The Plaintiff is the son of the Defendant and has filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.5 lacs. In this revision he has also prayed for a stay of the proceedings before the Trial Court.

(2.) By the impugned Order four applications had been decided. Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that four separate orders ought to have been passed. The argument has only stated to be rejected. The Plaintiff had firstly invoked Rule 2A of Order XXXIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court was of the opinion that since the suit was for the recovery of money this provision did not apply. A bare perusal of Rule 1 of the said Order will disclose that it has no applicability to the facts of the case. No jurisdictional error is evident. The second application had been filed by the Plaintiff under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code alleging that his Father had made some incorrect statements to the Land and Development Officer pertaining to his brother having been a bachelor; that the Defendant/Father had claimed ownership of some other property; and that the Defendant/Father had stated that he was getting rent of the First Floor of the property. All these allegations were found not to be directly pertinent to the dispute for the recovery of money. No jurisdictional error is evident in this finding also. Having dismissed the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. the Court also dismissed an application under Order XI Rules 12 and 14 of the CPC since the documents sought to be produced were in the context of the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. I find no jurisdictional error in this decision also. Finally the Plaintiff/Son has alleged that there has been a violation of an Order passed by the Court, thereby attracting the provision of Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC. On 25.2.1994 an order was passed directing the Defendant/Father to maintain status quo till the final disposal of the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 an 2, specifically restraining from disposing of his property till that date. The allegation was to the effect that the Defendant had installed his lock on the lock on the door of the stair case leading to the First Floor. The finding of the Trial Court is that it is the Defendant who is in possession and not the Plaintiff. I find no error in the exercise of jurisdiction.

(3.) I was inclined to order that the present Revision should be heard in its own turn since far older cases are awaiting a decision by this Court. However, it has been disclosed by counsel for the Defendant/Father has drawn my attention to an interim order whereby the Father has been restrained from disposing of the suit property and that this is causing mental anguish to him. This Revision is disposed of with the direction to the Lower Court to endeavour to dispose of the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 since the restraint order was made co-terminus with the decision in that application. On all other questions the revision is wholly without merit and is dismissed with costs of Rs.1,000/-.