BIRENDRA TIWARI Vs. SARVESHWAR TIWARI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned senior counsel, Mr. Kamal Nayan Chaubey appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned counsel, Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 on the interlocutory applications No.417 of 2013, I.A. No.416 of 2013 and I.A. No.400 of 2013. Since the learned counsel, Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma at the very outset raised the objection regarding maintainability of this First appeal by the appellant, I heard both the learned counsels on the maintainability of the appeal also.

(2.) It may be mentioned here that I.A. No.417 of 2013 has been filed by the appellant seeking leave of this Court to file this appeal against the Judgment and decree. I.A. No.416 of 2013 is the application wherein the appellant had prayed for stay of further proceeding in title suit No.234 of 2010 and I.A. No.400 of 2013 is limitation application filed by the appellant praying for condoning the delay in filing this First Appeal.

(3.) The appellant has filed this First Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.06.2012 passed by Sri Krishna Pratap Singh, the learned Sub Judge III, Patna in title suit No.234 of 2010. This present appellant was not a party to the suit. It may be mentioned here that the plaintiff-respondents filed the aforesaid title suit No.234 of 2010 praying for enforcement of development agreement dated 29.3.2005 against the defendant developer who was the sole defendnat and for further relief that the defendant developer is liable to deliver as per the development agreement, 25 per cent of the Schedule II and III properties to the plaintiff as agreed. It appears that subsequently some interveners applications were filed which were allowed by the trial Court and the intervener were added as party. However, the present appellant never filed any intervention application.