Court No. - 30
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1597 of 2019 Petitioner :- Satyavati And 3 Others Respondent :- The Additional District Judge Vth District Etah And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Himanshu Upadhyay,A.G.Karunakar Counsel for Respondent :- Sanjeev Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard Sri A.G. Karunakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the caveator.
Present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 25.4.2017 passed in Original Suit No. 119 of 2014 and the order dated 13.11.2018 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 11 of 2017 filed against the order of respondent no. 2 filed as Annexures 1 and 2 to the petition.
By the impugned order dated 25.4.2017 the interim injunction application filed by the plaintiff was allowed and the defendants were restrained from raising any new construction and were directed to maintain status quo on the property in question. The miscellaneous appeal filed against the same was also dismissed.
Challenging the same, submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that it is not a case of new construction that was being raised and the building was 100 years old and was in a dilapidated condition. The power of attorney was shown to have been executed by a person who in fact died much earlier. The sale deed was executed by the power of attorney holder in favour of the plaintiff which could not have been executed, as such, the plaintiffs have no prima-facie case and the balance of convenience and irreparable loss are also in favour of the petitioners.
Per-contra, learned counsel appearing for the caveator has supported the impugned order.
I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record.
On perusal of record, I find that it was found by the court below that the plaintiffs are in possession and any confusion regarding their status whether they are owner or not can only be decided after evidence. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiffs are claiming possession as owner of the property through registered sale deed and the defendants are tenant in the premises.
In such view of the matter, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the order impugned herein particularly in view of the fact that the power of attorney as well as the sale deed are registered documents.
This writ petition stands dismissed.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the hearing of the case may be expedited.
Suit is of the year 2014.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that the suit itself may be decided, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.
No costs.
Order Date :- 26.4.2019 p.s.