The petitioner has challenged the order dated 19th March 2012 passed by the learned 7th Addl. Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 11 of 2012 staying the operation of injunction granted by the trial Court dated 29th February 2012 in Regular Civil Suit No. 279 of 2010 till final hearing of the appeal.
It is the say of the learned advocate for the petitioner that if operation of the order impugned is not stayed, the entire appeal will become infructuous. He further urged that the petitioner herein has depended on Agreement to Sale made in the year 1985, and therefore, the Court ought to have considered the balance of convenience which heavily tilt in favour of the petitioner.
At the outset, it is required to be mentioned that petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The appeal is yet pending, which would be adjudicated by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on merits. The request of the petitioner was to stay operation of the injunction order which in no manner is likely to affect the merit of either side. As can be seen from the order impugned, the respondent is the original plaintiff, who has claimed not only the ownership but the possession qua the suit property. Application for injunction had been given inter alia with a request to grant such injunction in favour of the respondent and against the present petitioner, and the Court after by-partite hearing and detailed reasonings, protected the respondent against the present petitioner.
It is fervently argued by the learned advocate for the petitioner that petitioner is in possession of the suit property since 1985 on the basis of agreement to sale executed in his favour and on account of such an injunction, the respondents are likely to misuse the Court process and forcibly take away possession of the suit property, and therefore, suspension of the order is inevitable. The Court did not believe the version of the petitioner at a prima facie stage and being convinced by the reasons given by the trial Court, it concluded that the agreement to sale on which the petitioner depends upon is not a registered document. Moreover, no suit at any point of time for specific performance of the agreement to sale has been preferred by the petitioner nor any notice has been given to the respondents.
Independently also, learned advocate for the petitioner has been inquired by this Court as to whether there is any evidence which materially would reflect his possession from the year 1985, which he is unable to point out. From the documentary evidences brought on the record, this Court is unable to find out as to on the basis of which document, the petitioner insists to oust the original owners from the suit land.
There being no error in the order impugned, this petition deserves no entertainment. At this stage, learned advocate for the petitioner urges this Court to direct expeditious hearing of the appeal. The petitioner since has not made such a request to the Court concerned, he is permitted to so do it.
Writ petition stands disposed of. None of the observations made hereinabove shall influence the appellate forum while deciding appeal pending before it.
{Ms.
Sonia Gokani, J.} Prakash* Top