Vakalatnama filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 in Court is taken on record.
This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
"(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow to consider and dispose of the application moved by the petitioenr, under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in Regular Suit No.539 of 2010 (Mohd. Irfan versus Union of Bank of India and others);
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding respondent no.2 not to sell Building No. 31/82 Jahangirabad Mansion situated at Mahatama Gandhi Marg, Hazratganj Lucknow which is subject matter of Agreement to Sell dated 12.3.2010 to which petitioner and respondent no.2 are party;
(iii)issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just, reasonable and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) award cost of writ petition in favour of the petitioenr."
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for opposite party no.1 and learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
Notice to opposite parties no. 3 to 5 is dispensed with.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that a tripartite agreement has been entered into amongst the petitioner, opposite party no.2 and opposite parties no.3 to 5 for purchase of the property mortgaged by opposite parties no.3 to 5 with the Bank (opposite party no.2) and the period stipulated for execution of sale deed had already come to an end on 12.6.2010. It has also been submitted that the petitioner has filed an injunction suit on 26.5.2010 before Civil Judge (Senior Division) Lucknow for restraining the defendants, opposite parties herein from selling the property in question to any other person but since the lawyers of the Civil Court were abstaining from work, therefore, the application for temporary injunction could not be heard and on 11.6.2010 the case has been listed for hearing on 1st of July, 2010. Learned counsel has further submitted that the matter is urgent as there is likelihood that the Bank may transfer the property to some one else.
Learned counsel for the Bank (opposite party no.2) submits that the petitioner had earlier issued a cheque of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- but subsequently he got the clearance of the cheque stopped, that shows malafides on his part.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, opposite party no.1, Civil judge (Senior Division), Lucknow is directed to dispose of the application for interim injunction in accordance with law within seven days from 1st July, 2010. As the copies of the plaint, application for interim injunction and affidavit are annexed with this writ petition, therefore, opposite party no.2 may file objection, if any, against the said application on 1.7.2010 itself.
With the above direction, the petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 21.6.2010 Muk