LALITHA SAHOO Vs. RANIA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH the Opp. Parties No. 2 to 4 are the plaintiffs and petitioner in the Court below has been arrayed as Proforma Opp. Parties because they could not immediately available. Heard.

(2.) THIS writ petition stand disposed of at the stage of admission.

(3.) IT appears from the impugned order and learned counsel for the plaintiffs -petitioners states that plaintiffs have instituted the suit inter alia claiming for partition of the suit schedule land on the basis of existing relationship with the defendants and in her written statement, the defendant No. 1 has not only admitted about such relationship thereby conceding to the rights of the plaintiffs to claim for partition, but also said defendant has admitted about alienating two acres, out of the suit properties to a stranger purchaser and therefore, a decree under Order 12, Rule 6, CPC can be passed by granting a decree of injunction against the defendant No. 1 not to act upon that sale transaction and to bound all persons claiming under that sale deed not to assert any right. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhenkanal without properly appreciating such fact situation, the admission of the defendant No. 1 and the provision of law under Order 12, Rule 6, CPC has wrongly rejected the application filed by the plaintiffs and therefore, he has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him correctly and lawfully.