SUNEEL KUMAR Vs. THE DISTRICT JUDGE, LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Aditya Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) In view of the order proposed to be passed, notices to the opposite party nos.3 to 18 are dispensed with.

(3.) As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner and respondents nos.3 to 18 are co-owners (Sahkhatedars) of land Khasra Nos. 629, 680, 596, 692, 767, 709 Kha & 681 situated at Village Mal, Pargana and Tehsil Malihabad, Lucknow and name of all of them are entered as Bhumidhar with transferable rights in revenue records. The petitioner and respondent nos.3 to 18 are owner in possession of said land. The property in dispute has not been partitioned and no demarcation of the same has taken place amongst the co-owners till date. On coming to know that some of the respondents were going to execute sale deed of the land in dispute, the petitioner filed R.S. No.659 of 2015, Sunil Kumar Vs. Sita Ram & Ors. for permanent injunction against respondent nos.3 to 18. Along with an application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. r/w Sec. 151 C.P.C. respondent Nos.3, 4, 6 to 18 had put in appearance through caveat. On 22.05.2015, the learned Civil Judge, Hawali (Jr. Div.) Lucknow issued notices to respondent no.3 and 16 fixing 3rd July, 2015. The petitioner apprehended that taking advantage of the summer vacations the respondent may sell the property in dispute, as such, the petitioner moved an application under Order 151 C.P.C. for direction to the parties to maintain status quo. The application under order 151 C.P.C. was rejected by the learned Civil Judge.