RAHMAT ALI Vs. ABDUL RAZZAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a long drawn litigation which is pending since 17-11-1975, in relation to the immovable property which consists of agricultural land and residential building, the petitioners are aggrieved of the order of the Revisional Court passed in C. R. No. 5/89 arising out of Civil Suit No.128A/88, filed by Abdul Razzak (Respondents No. 1 to 4), wherein the Revisional Court has restrained the petitioners who are purchasers pendente lite of 4.99 acres of land shown in Schedule 'A' and 'B' annexed with the plaint of the first suit, (C. S. No.156-A/75) renumbered as C. S. No. 6-A/ 88.

(2.) The case has its own chequered history. One Mirza Rashid and others instituted the first suit against the respondents No. l to 4 for possession and damages on the avermants that the sale-deeds executed by them were not the real sales but were nominal sales as a security towards the repayment of the loan advanced to the plaintiffs, namely, Mirza Rashid and others, therefore, it was alleged therein that the defendant Inayatullah Khan,, who was the purchaser has no right and title to the property. In the suit, after the enforcement of enactment of M. P. Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (for short the 'Act') from 31-1-77, a plea was raised that the transaction which were subsisting on the enforcement of the said Act, the transactions are prohibited transactions, of loan as defined in Section 2 (f) of the Act, therefore, claimed to be discharged. The plaintiff approached u/S. 5 of the Act before the Sub-Divisional Officer (S.D.O.) under the Act for seeking the relief. The S.D.O. declared the sales as void as loan transactions and confirmed the title possession of the plaintiff, vide order dated 1-6-1979. Pursuant to this order the plaintiff was put in possession on 1-1-79. The predecessor of respondents, preferred an appeal, which was heard by the Additional Collector, who vide order dated 10-3-1980 allowed the appeal, set aside the order of S.D.O. and remanded the case for fresh disposal in accordance with law. After remand, the S.D.O., reconsidered the matter in the light of the remand order, vide order dated 16-8-1982 and rejected the application. The applicant / plaintiff preferred the appeal before the collector, which was dismissed on 14-3-1983. Aggrieved of this a petition No. 1446/ 83 was preferred by Mirza Rashid Beg which was dismissed on 17-9-85. A review M.C.C. No. 507/ 85 against this order was also dismissed on 24-1-1986. After the order of remand by the Additional Collector, the vendee Inayatullah Khan was put in possession in execution of the warrant of possession executed on 21-5-1981. During the pendency of all these proceedings and the suit, the petitioners who are purchasers pendente-lite purchased the some part of the land vide registered sale-deed dated 27-2-1967 and started interfering with the possession of the Inayatullah Khan, hence, he instituted a suit (C.S. No.128-A/88) wherein, an application for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, C.P.C. was also filed. As in the first suit the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff as well as by the defendant were pending, the trial Court disposed of the three applications, vide order on 14-9-1988, Annexure-P/1, directing the parties to maintain status-quo. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents No. 1 to 4 preferred a revision before the Revisional Court i.e., 3rd Addl. Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bilaspur. An objection was raised by the petitioners that an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(r), CAC. would lie and not the revision. The Revisional Court observed that the objection shall be decided at the time of final hearing. After final hearing of the revision, the Revisional Court allowed the revision by construing the order as was passed under Section 151, C.P.C. and restrained the petitioners and other defendants from interfering with the possession of the respondents No. 1 to 4. Aggrieved of this order, the petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Kumari Tripti Kohlia, learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on shortnoted decisions of this Court in Lakshmi Narayan v. Sundarbai, 1979 (xi) WN 230, Anil Kumar v. Kashinath, 1981 (1) MPWN 257 and Surendra Kumar v. Canara Bank, 1993 (1) MPWN 45. contended that the revisional jurisdiction was illegally exercised, as the order was passed on the applications under O. 39, Rule 1 and 2, C.P.C., of maintaining status-quo. Therefore, if the respondents were aggrieved of the order, they ought to have preferred an appeal under O. 43, R. 1(r) of C.P.C. It was also submitted that while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the Revisional Court ought not to have interfered in the findings recorded by the trial Court, as the findings were neither illegal nor were without jurisdiction. Therefore the order dated 21-7-1993 (Annexure-P/3) be quashed.