KANAI PAUL Vs. BINOY BHUSAN PAUL @ BINOY PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was filed on 10.02.2011 and by an order dated 09.06.2011 operation of the impugned order dated 30.11.2010 passed in Title (Partition) Suit No.102 of 1980 was stayed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Thereafter, this writ petition was listed for hearing only on 12.02.2018. The respondent put his appearance through his counsel way back in the year 2011 and thereafter, Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, the learned counsel has filed Vakalatnama on 05.07.2017. Taking note of the delay in listing of this writ petition about seven years after this Court passed an order of stay on 09.06.2011, an enquiry was ordered by this Court. By this order the petitioner was permitted to produce additional documents, however, subject to payment of Rs.25000/-. However, the petitioner has not availed the liberty granted to him for producing additional documents vide order dated 12.02.2018. The respondent has also not filed any affidavit in the present proceeding. In the above facts, prayer for adjournment was declined. During course of the hearing, Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, the learned counsel for the respondent has tendered a copy of order dated 01.04.2016 passed in Contempt Case (Civil) No.393 of 2011 to submits that any interference in the matter would amount to two conflicting orders by this Court. By order dated 01.04.2016 passed in Contempt Case (Civil) No.393 of 2011 which was initiated alleging willful violation of order passed in First Appeal No.149 of 1984(R) this Court has issued the following directions:

(2.) To a pointed query from the Court, whether a copy of order dated 30.11.2010 passed in Title (Partition) Suit No 102 of 1980 was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge hearing Contempt Case (Civil) No. 393 of 2011, Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, the learned counsel for the respondent states that in the contempt petition order dated 30.11.2010 of the trial court has not been referred to.

(3.) The defendants in Title (Partition) Suit No. 102 of 1980 have questioned the legality of order dated 30.11.2010.