Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, Sri Gulrej Khan and Sri J.H. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Umesh Vats, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3.
Petitioners who are mother, son and daughter instituted suit for partition in the form of O.S. No.167 of 1974. Petitioner No.1 is widow of Maqbool who was son of Habibullah. Habibullah died leaving behind his widow, three sons and three daughters. Maqbool one of the sons of Habibullah died after the death of Habibullah but before filing the suit for partition. The widow, other two sons and three daughters of Habibullah were made defendants in the suit. In the suit partition was sought of three properties. One was a house, and a shop situate in Mohalla Makdoom Shah Adhan Pargana Haveli, Tehsil Sadar, District Jaunpur. The other property was a shop situate in Mohalla Tartala, Jaunpur and the third property was an ahata in Mohalla Tartala. The suit was decreed on 24.08.1981 and a preliminary decree was passed and directed to be prepared. Against the said preliminary decree defendants filed Civil Appeal No.243 of 1981, which was decided on 07.07.1986 and shares were slightly modified. Thereafter, preliminary decree was prepared. Thereafter, Misc. Case No.30 of 1986 was instituted for preparation of final decree by plaintiffs petitioners.
Thereafter, plaintiffs and defendants sold the property in dispute to respondents No.1 to 3 through registered sale deed dated 24.05.1994, copy of which is Annexure SA-2 to the second supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners. Thereafter, respondents No.1 to 3 applied for impleadment in the Misc. Case No.30 of 1986 and they were impleaded (impleadment application was allowed in the year 1986).
Respondents No.1 to 3 filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.2351 of 2011 in this Court which was disposed of on 29.11.2011 directing the court below to decide Misc. Case No.30 of 1986 within three months and further directed that if any adjournment was granted it should be on a cost of not less than Rs.500/- per adjournment. Unfortunately, petitioners filed an application for modification of the said order, which was also rejected on 11.05.2012. Thereafter, they filed application before the trial court that before deciding the Misc. Case No.30 of 1986 (for preparation of final decree) their application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A, C.P.C. shall be decided. as in violation of orders dated 12.01.1974, 04.02.1986 and 23.12.1996 property had been sold. The order dated 12.01.1974 was passed in the suit by the trial court.
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jaunpur dismissed the petitioners' application on 18.01.2012. Against the said order petitioners filed Civil Revision No.41 of 2012. District Judge, Jaunpur dismissed the revision on 16.07.2012 hence this writ petition.
It is utterly shocking to the conscience of the court that petitioners themselves along with some or all the defendants sold the property to respondents No.1 to 3 and are now asserting that sale was in violation of some injunction orders restraining some of the defendants from selling the property. The subsequent injunction orders were regarding change of nature of property. Interim orders dated 12.01.1974 and 04.02.1986 were passed in the suit and appeal, which came to an end with the final decision of the same and the last injunction order dated 23.12.1996 was only to the extent that parties should not change the constructions/ make any structural changes.
After selling the property to respondents No.1 to 3, petitioners have got no business to meddle. Their intention is quite clear. They only want to delay the proceedings for preparation of final decree. Even if for the sake of arguments it is assumed that one of the defendants was restrained from selling the property still he sold the property, petitioners after selling their shares in the property cannot take any objection to the simultaneous sale by the defendants even if it is in violation of some injunction order. After sale of the property by the plaintiffs it is the purchaser who may possibly complain. The last injunction order was to apply to all the parties. If this injunction order has been violated then petitioners are themselves violators of the said injunction order.
This writ petition and the attempts to delay the proceedings for preparation of final decree are grossest abuse of the court. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed with Rs.50,000/- as cost which shall be included in the final decree.
Order Date :- 01.11.2012 NLY