RAJAN XALXO Vs. ANIL ANTONI KACHHAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Surya Prakash along with Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the State.

(2.) This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying therein to quash the order dtd. 30/11/2024 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, whereby, the appeal being Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.8 of 2024 filed by the petitioner challenging the rejection of petition filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 read with Sec. 151 of the CPC in connection with Original Title Suit No.571 of 2023 by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ranchi, has been rejected.

(3.) Mr. Surya Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recorded raiyat sold and transferred the land of 2.40 acres under Khata No.91, Khewat No.2 being R.S. Plot No.375, 895, 896 and 1106 of Village Morabadi, Tetartoli, P.S. Bariatu, Revenue P.S. No.792, District- Ranchi by virtue of registered deed of sale dtd. 3/10/1958 after taking permission under Sec. 46 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act vide Case No.64R 8/11/1957-58 in favour of Chamna Munda and put him in khas and effective possession of the same and, thereafter, Chamna Munda acquired valid right, title, interest and possession over the aforesaid land. He then submits that Chamna Munda and his son, namely, Simon Kachhap executed a registered agreement on 28/1/1989 in favour of Emmanuel Xalxo being the father of the plaintiff/petitioner for sale and transfer of the land under Khata No.91, Plot No.375, 895, 896 and 1106, total area 1.20 acres out of 2.40 acres of Village-Morabadi, Tetartoli, P.S. Bariatu, District- Ranchi. He further submits that since the agreement dtd. 28/1/1989 was not complied with, the suit for specific performance was filed, which is still pending and they are trying to sold the land to other persons and in view of that, the petition under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the CPC was filed and the learned Court on erroneous ground has rejected the same vide order dtd. 29/6/2024. He submits that the order dtd. 29/6/2024 was challenged before the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.8 of 2024, which was further rejected vide judgment dtd. 30/11/2024. He submits that both the learned courts have erred in not considering that the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and, as such, both the orders may kindly be quashed and the petition filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 read with Sec. 151 of the CPC may kindly be allowed.