SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Pat) 489

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ARUN KUMAR JHA, J.
Civil Misc. Jur. No.635 of 2023
(13.8.2024)
Jay Shankar ... Petitioner
vs.
Anurag Kumar & Ors. ... Respondents

Advocates:
For the Petitioner: M/s K.N. Chaubey, Sr. Adv., Awadhesh Kumar Pandit.
For the Resp. 1 to 5 : M/s J.S. Arora, Sr. Adv., Gaurav Pratap, Himanshu Shekhar, Manoj Kumar.
For the Resp. No. 7 : M/s Ray Saurabh Nath, Rajesh Sinha.
For the Bank : Mr. Siddharth Harsh.

Headnote:

Constitution of India – Article 227 read with Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Writ Petition against an order of Injunction – alternative remedy – maintainability of Writ Petition – ordinarily the High Court would not entertain such petition where specific provision under the Code has been made providing for appeal against such order – however, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the fact that the matter has been heard on different occasions and the proceeding before the learned Trial Court being in the teeth of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act so far as property of the petitioner is concerned, the petition held maintainable. (Para 27)

Constitution of India – Article 227 read with Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Rejection of plaint – petitioner has already raised the issue before the learned Trial Court – there could not be duality of proceeding. (Para 2)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 – Injunction – it is the settled law that order of injunction would affect only the parties to the order – since the petitioner was not party when the order for injunction was passed, he would remain unaffected by the injunction order – however, as the petitioner has now been impleaded as a party, he is within his right to move appropriate application before the learned trial to modify the order. (Para 29)

S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath, AIR 1994 SC 853 : (1994) 1 SCC 1; A.V. Papaya Sastry Vs. Government of A.P., 2007 (2) PLJR 201 (SC); Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai Vs. Tuticorin Educational Society, 2020 (1) BLJ 442 (SC) : (2019) 9 SCC 538; Mohamed Ali Vs. V. Jaya, 2022 (4) PLJR 127(SC); Mineral Development Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 Patna 443; Ram Prasad Singh Vs. Subodh Prasad Singh, AIR 1983 Patna 278; Olinda Fernandes Vs. Goa State Cooperative Bank Ltd., (2016) 13 SCC 298; Jagdish Singh Vs. Heeralal, 2014 (1) BLJ 21 (SC) : AIR 2014 SC 371; Hirday Narain Vs. Income Tax Officer AIR 1971 SC 33 – Referred to.

Arun Kumar Jha, J.—

I.A.No.02 of 2024

The present interlocutory application has been filed for amendment of prayer, by adding the following relief:—

1(v). For rejection of plaint to the extent of land purchased by the petitioner i.e. an area of 12342 sq.ft. (28.33 dec.) land of Survey Plot No.1380, Khata No.367 of Mauza Danapur Sahjadpur, Panchuchak, Sultanpur Gola Road,P.S. Danapur, District Patna purchased through certificate of sale dated 20/03/2021 issued by the Authorized Officer, Canara Bank SPL SME, Branch, Patna and subsequently through registered sale deed dated 14/02/2022 after succeeding in a open auction bid dated 28/08/2020 under the sale notice dated 18.07.2020 published in Daily Hindustan Newspaper by Canara Bank SPL SME, Branch, Patna under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002”.

2. For the reasons stated in the interlocutory application (I.A.No.02 of 2024), the same is allowed and which shall be treated as part of the main petition.

CWJC No.635 of 2023

3. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:—

“(i) For a direction to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner on 04.11.2022 in the court of Sub Judge 1st, Danapur under order 1 Rule 10(2) and section 151 of C.P.C. for impleading as necessary party (intervener defendant) in Title Partition Suit No.87/2018 being a purchaser of an area of 12342 sq.ft. i.e. 28.22 dec. land of Survey Plot No.1380, Khata No.367 of Mauza Danapur Sahjadpur, Panchuchak, Sultanpur Gola Road, P.S.- Danapur, District-Patna purchased through certificate of sale dated 20/03/2021 issued by the Authorized Officer, Canara Bank SPL SME, Branch, Patna and subsequently through registered sale deed dated 14/02/2022 after succeeding in a open auction bid dated 28/07/2020 published in Daily Hindustan Newspaper by Canara Bank SPL SME, Branch, Patna under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002 within a time fame and further to allow the petitioner as necessary party in the aforesaid Title Partition Suit.

(ii) For a direction to the learned lower court to decide the issue raised by the petitioner in his application regarding plot having an area 12342 sq.ft. i.e. 28.33 dec. land of Survey Plot No.1380, Khata No.367 of Mauza Danapur Sahjadpur, Panchuchak, Sultanpur Gola Road, P.S.-Danapur, District Patna purchased through sale deed dated 14/02/2022 under auction bid of SURFAESI Act and exclude the area of aforesaid plot from proceeding of Title Partition Suit No. 87/2018 pending in the court of Sub Judge 1st, Danapur in view of provision of section 34 of the Secularization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002.

(iii) For setting aside the order of injunction dated 25/05/2022 passed in Title Partition Suit No. 87/2018 behind back of petitioner more particularly to the extent of purchased area of Plot No. 1380, Khata No.367 of Mauza Danapur under SURFAESI Act proceeding.

(iv) The petitioner further prays for issuance of any other appropriate writ/ order/ direction to which he is found entitled too”.

4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent no.5 along with respondent nos. 1 to 4 brought a Title Partition Suit No.87/2018 against her husband/ the respondent no.6 and the respondent nos. 7 and 8 for partition of the suit property of Schedule 1 claiming 1/6th share for each of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also sought declaring void ab initio two Development Work Agreements. The plaintiffs further sought temporary injunction against defendant no.1/respondent no.6 from alienating the suit land of the Schedule 1 and against other defendants for making any construction over the land of Schedule II. The petitioner claims himself to be owner of 28.33 decimals (12342 sq.ft.) of land of suit property of Schedule I having total

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top