NAND SINGH Vs. SHANKAR DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for staying the operation of the judgment and decree against which this appeal has been filed. Respondent Shankar Dass had filed a suit against appellant Nand Singh and respondent No. 2 with a prayer for declaration that in the capacity of Mahant and Mohitmeem he is owner of the agriculture land and that the appellant and respondent No. 2 have no right, title, interest or concern in the land in dispute and also for restraining the appellant and respondent No. 2 from interfering with the symbolic possesison of the respondent over the suit land. Further injunction was prayed for getting the suit land mutated in favour of the respondent-defendants. The suit was decreed for possession of the suit land and the appellant and respondent No. 2 were restrained from getting the suit land mutated in their favour in any manner.

(2.) The appellant filed an appeal in the district Court. Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge was pleased to dismiss the appeal. When this appeal came up for hearing before learned single Judge on 2-6- 1999, he heard the argument and reserved the order. However, the matter was again taken up on 28-9-1999 and the records were called for. Thereafter the matter was adjourned to various dates uptil 23-3-2000 when another single judgment of this Court had directed that the matter be listed before some other Bench. On 27-3-2000 the matter was put up before another Bench and because of strike of members of bar, it was adjourned to 5-4-2000. However, vide CM 2268-C of 2000 the appellant prayed for preponment of date to 3-4-2000. The said CM was allowed and the case was listed for 4-4-2000.

(3.) It may be mentioned that during this period, the appellant had prayed for stay by moving CM 6541 of 1999 which was rejected vide order dated 1-10-1999. No fresh application was made and, therefore, stay was not granted on the oral request on 4-4-2000. On that day, the members of bar were on srike and the parties were present in person and they were not in a position to argue the matter and the matter was adjourned to 6-4-2000. On 6-4-2000 both the parties appeared in person and the appellant contended that the right of tenancy cannot be forfeited even if the tenant pleads his own right as owner and denied the title of the land owner. After hearing the parties in person and going through the papers on the file I admit the case. It is after this, that the CM 2381-C of 2000 is filed in which the stay has been asked for.