SUNIL KUMAR Vs. USHADEVI RADHAKRISHNA PATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN the writ appeal came up before us on the earlier occasion, it was represented that it will be better, if the main writ petitions are taken up and disposed of, as the writ appeal had arisen out of an interlocutory order made in WMP No. 6793 of 1995 in WP No. 4125 of 1995. Hence, we directed the writ appeal and the writ petitions posted together for hearing and now, we have heard counsel on both the sides in these petitions.

(2.) THERE was a partnership firm by name Suganchand and Co. which had three partners Radha Bai, Brij Mohan and Sunil Kumar. Radha Bai died on 21st September, 1987, leaving behind her, four daughters and three sons. The daughters are the petitioners in WP No. 4125 of 1995 and the sons are respondents Nos. 3 to 5 therein. On 8th March, 1993, Brij Mohan died leaving behind him, his wife, Sakuntala Devi, who is the petitioner in WP No. 4609 of 1995.

(3.) IT is contended before us that the direction given in CMA No. 1309 of 1995 to the parties to maintain the status quo would bind the Appropriate Authority and it shall not proceed any further in the proceedings before it. Admittedly, the Appropriate Authority is not a party to the order in CMA, nor is he a party in the suit pending on the file of Sub-Court, Tiruvellore. If the party wants to get an order against the Appropriate Authority, it is for him to implead the Appropriate Authority as a party to the proceedings and seek appropriate direction against it. Without doing so, the parties cannot act on presumptions or implications.