TEJA RAM Vs. BIRBAL RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal comes up for consideration of stay petition. The respondents have entered caveat, and vide order dated 1.8.2003, the appeal was admitted. However, it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, that since the suit has been dismissed on a preliminary point under Order 7 Rule 11, instead of considering the stay petition, it would be in the interest of justice that the impugned order is set aside, and the suit is sent back to the learned trial Court for trial on merits, and expeditious disposal.

(2.) In that view of the matter, I have gone through the impugned order.

(3.) It is informed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the suit was filed by him on 04.04.98. From the impugned order, it transpires that the application under Order 7 Rule 11 was filed on 26.4.2003, i.e. after the disposal of the plaintiff's application for grant of Temporary Injunction, and the thrust of the application was, that the person from whom the plaintiff claim to have entered into agreement to sell, himself was also having only an agreement to sell in his favour, which has already been cancelled, and therefore, the plaintiff has no locus standi.