RAZIA BEGUM Vs. COLLECTOR DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BUDAUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel for respondent No. 1.

(2.) Inspite of sufficient service no one appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Prem Chand, respondent No. 4 and petitioner have instituted O.S. No. 13 of 2007 against respondents No. 1 to 3, i.e., Collector, Budaun, Prahalad Kumar Gupta and Murari Lal Gupta both sons of Ram Prasad Gupta. The relief claimed in the plaint is that a permanent prohibitory injunction may be issued restraining the Collector, Budaun from auctioning the property in dispute in pursuance of decrees passed against Prahalad Kumar and Murari Lal by District Consumer Forum as plaintiffs are owners of the property. It has further been elaborated in the plaint that petitioner, plaintiff No. 2 is owner of half of the property in dispute through sale deed executed by Murari Lal on 18.11.2006 and plaintiff No. 1/proforma respondent No. 4 has got an agreement for sale in his favour executed by Prahalad Kumar. It has also been alleged in the plaint that Prem Chand has filed suit for specific performance against Prahalad Kumar.

(3.) In the suit application for temporary injunction was also filed. Trial court/Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Budaun rejected the temporary injunction application through order dated 16.4.2007. Against the said order both the plaintiffs filed Civil Misc. Appeal No. 55 of 2007 which was dismissed by A.D.J. Court No. 2, Budaun hence this writ petition by plaintiff No. 2 alone. Both the courts below have held that property in dispute had been attached on 13.11.2006 (even though it was alleged by the plaintiff that attachment in fact took place on 23.11.2006). The courts below further held that plaintiffs could proceed under relevant provisions of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act and the Rules framed thereunder :