Arun Kumar Jha, J. – Let the defects pointed by the stamp reporter be removed within four weeks.

2. Today, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, which is taken on record.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents on the point of admission and I intend to dispose of this petition at this stage itself with the consent of learned counsels for the parties.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/appellant/defendant has challenged the order dated 22.01.2021 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-IX, Bhagalpur in Misc. Appeal No.18 of 2019, arising out of Title Suit No.153 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the learned first appellate court dismissed the Misc. Appeal No.18 of 2019 filed by the petitioner/appellant/defendant under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents/respondents/plaintiffs filed Title Suit No.153 of 2018 for partition of the suit land claiming that the parties to the suit were the heirs of one Chiman Ram and there was partition of the properties of Chiman Ram, but some of the properties remained joint. The petitioner/appellant/ defendant appeared and contested the suit claiming that suit was not maintainable as the suit land has been recorded in the name of grandfather of the petitioner/appellant/defendant namely, Radhe Shyam Agarwal and the same was acquired by him during family partition. The petitioner/appellant/defendant further claimed that the respondents/respondents/plaintiffs have got no right, title and interest in the suit property as the suit property was the exclusive property of the petitioner/appellant/defendant. In Title Suit No.153 of 2018, an application has been filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure on behalf of the respondents/ respondents/ plaintiffs claiming that petitioner/ appellant/ defendant no.2 in collusion with the defendant nos. 1 and 3 was negotiating to sell out the part of the suit land and even one sale deed has been executed on 30.03.2019 in favour of one Sudhanshu Kumar Mishra and a prayer has been made to direct the defendants to maintain status quo over the spot. The said application was allowed vide order dated 23.05.2019 with a direction to the parties not to transfer the suit land without permission of the court.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that being aggrieved by the order dated 23.05.2019, the petitioner/appellant/defendant preferred Misc. Appeal No.18 of 2019 under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said appeal was fixed for hearing on 26.02.2020 before the court of learned Additional District Judge-VI, Bhagalpur and it was the period of ‘Covid Pandemic’ and the record of Misc. Appeal No.18 of 2019 got transferred to the court of learned Additional District Judge-IX, Bhagalpur on 31.10.2020. Thereafter, on 02.12.2020, which was the next date, judicial work was hampered due to Corona and next date fixed was on 06.01.2021. On that date, the learned appellate court without giving any opportunity to the petitioner/appellant/defendant closed his argument, heard the respondents/respondents/ plaintiffs and fixed the case for orders and, thereafter, on 22.01.2021, order was passed dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner/appellant/ defendant.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that both the courts have passed the orders without appreciating the facts as to whether any prima facie case was made out in favour of the respondents/respondents/plaintiffs or not. The petitioner/appellant/defendant has made specific submission before the learned court that the plaintiffs have nothing to do with the suit land and despite the clear averments made on behalf of the petitioner/appellant/defendant, the learned court below proceeded in the matter and passed the order restraining the parties not to transfer