PRAKASH CHANDRA BHATT Vs. KAILASH CHANDRA KARNATAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) INSTANT petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 20.02.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Almora in Civil Suit No. 18 of 2004 'Kishore Kumar Tewari and others vs. Jeewan Chandra Pant and others. The petitioner has sought further writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Trial Court to consolidate the proceedings of both the Civil Suit Nos. 18 of 2004 'Kishore Kumar Tewari and others Vs. Jeewan Chandra Pant and others and Civil Suit No. 17 of 2007 'Prakash Chandra Bhatt vs. Kailash Chandra Karnatak and another.

(3.) THE facts giving rise to the writ petition, are that petitioner has purchased 7 1/2 Muthee of land belonging to Z.A. Khatauni Khata no. 482 from Shri Jeewan Chandra Pant and Sameer Pant (respondent nos. 3 & 4) through two separate registered sale deed dated 25.02.2004. The title and possession of the disputed land was transferred to the petitioner on the date of execution of sale deed dated 25.02.2004. The respondent nos. 1 & 2 had knowledge about the fact that aforesaid land had been purchased by the petitioner but despite of this fact, in order to grab the land, the respondent nos. 1 & 2 filed a Revenue Suit u/s 229 -B U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act before the Asstt. Collector, Almora, in which, the respondents did not made the petitioner a party. According to the petitioner, no cause of action arose in favour of respondent no. 1 and against the petitioner owing to subsequent purchase of the property. Thereafter, the respondent no. 1 & 2 filed a Civil Suit seeking a decree of declaration that the sale deed dated 25.02.2004 executed in favour of the petitioner be declared as null and void and further a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and respondent no. 3 & 4 from interfering in the land in dispute. The suit was numbered as Civil Suit no. 18 of 2004, which is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Almora, in which the respondent no. 3 & 4 have been impleaded as defendant nos. 1 & 2 while the petitioner has been impleaded as defendant no. 3. In this suit, the respondent nos. 3 & 4 have filed their written statement. It has been further averred in the petition that as the respondent nos. 1 & 2 in the garb of the said suits tried to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner instituted a Civil Suit seeking decree of declaration that the sale deed dated 23.09.2004 executed in favour of respondent no. 1 be declared null and void and further a permanent injunction against respondent nos. 1 & 2 has been sought. The said suit is registered as Civil Suit No. 17 of 2007. It has been asserted in the writ petition that the petitioner also moved an application for temporary injunction, which was allowed by the Trial Court vide order dated 03.03.2009. Aggrieved with the order of the Trial Court the respondent no. 1 filed an appeal before the District Judge, Almora which is pending disposal. However, no interim order is passed in the said appeal.