RAM SINGH Vs. GULABO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter has been placed before this Bench for consideration of the second stay application bearing number 16752/2011 as moved in S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 270/2001. From the office endorsements, it appears that the second stay application was filed way back on 01.10.2009. However, it carried some defects and ultimately, came to be registered on the regular side in the year 2011.

(2.) IN this second stay application, the plaintiff-appellant has made the submissions that he is in possession of the land in dispute that was allegedly purchased by him through agreement to sell dated 27.08.1984. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 (the defendants of the suit) sold out the land in dispute to Dhanna Ram and Lal Chand, sons of Mani Ram through a registered sale deed dated 06.07.2009. The alleged vendees have been referred in the application as respondents Nos. 5 and 6 and it is alleged that after purchasing the land, these persons were interfering in the possession of the appellant and were required to be restrained from such interference. The appellant has prayed in this application that during the pendency and until final disposal of the appeal, the respondents may be restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession and may further be restrained from alienating the land in dispute or getting the revenue record changed. In this application, filed way back on 01.10.2009, there has not been any interim order passed in favour of the appellant.

(3.) MOREOVER , it is noticed that the first stay application as moved in this matter was rejected on 24.11.2008 after this Court found the prayer made in terms of Order XLI Rule 5 CPC for staying the operation, effect and execution of the impugned judgment and decree to be entirely baseless when the suit for specific performance had been dismissed by the Trial Court. The submission was made at that stage too that status quo in relation to the property in dispute may be ordered to be maintained and else, the respondents might try to dispossess the appellant. It was noticed that nothing co- related with such submission was stated in the affidavit filed in support of the stay application and though the appellant was directed to file specific affidavit stating the position of the land in question, such an affidavit was not filed.