KHURSHEED Vs. ZANNAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that in the facts obtaining, nothing illegal, perverse or erroneous can be attributed to the impugned order dated 05.05.2014, passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jhunjhunu (hereinafter 'the trial court') restraining the appellants -defendants (hereinafter 'the defendants') from transferring, alienating or otherwise creating any third party rights in any manner whatsoever in the suit property as also from making any construction thereon. The order passed by the learned trial court on the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC filed by the respondent -plaintiff (hereinafter 'the plaintiff) is a well considered order taking into consideration the fact that there is a dispute between the sister and brother with regard to the ancestral property and that the purported sale -deed dated 09.10.2009 allegedly executed by the plaintiff was prima facie suspect in view of the fact that one of the alleged witnesses thereto Mubarik, the son of the plaintiff was not even within the country at the relevant time. To my mind, in the facts obtaining, a triable issue was made out and the plaintiff had been able to make out a prima facie case to impugn the sale -deed dated 09.10.2009 whereby the plaintiff was alleged to have transferred her right, share and interest in the property for a consideration of Rs. 7,50,000/ - as also plot admeasuring 1400 sq. mtr. in lieu thereof. Taking into consideration the fact that the subject matter of the suit was an agricultural land which if sold or otherwise converted to non -agricultural use would entail irreparable loss to the plaintiff, I am of the considered view that the order dated 05.05.2014, passed by the trial court, does not warrant interference by this Court. In the facts obtaining, the balance of convenience has also been rightly found by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) CONSEQUENTLY , even while not interfering in the impugned order dated 05.05.2014, passed by the trial court, I would direct the trial court to dispose of the plaintiff's suit pending before it within a period of twelve months from the presentation of a certified copy of this order. To ensure compliance with the order of expedited disposal of the suit it is further directed that adjournments at the instance of any of the party to the suit would only be allowed on a written application and by way of a reasoned and speaking order. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Shiv Cotex Versus Tirgun Auto Plat P. Ltd. & Others [ : 2011 AIR SCW 5789] would also guide the trial court on the issue of adjournments.

(3.) THE appeal stands disposed of accordingly.