Back
2021 Supreme(UK) 78
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Yadav Chandra Mungali @ Yadav Chandra Pandey & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Chandra Tiwari & Ors. - Respondent
Appeal From Order No. 47 of 2021
Decided On : 09-03-2021
Rajendra Dobhal, Advocate, Kailash Chandra, Advocate, J.C. Kandpal, Advocate, Bhuwan Bhatt, Advocate
The importance of expeditious trial and the influence of parties' undertakings in the disposal of the appeal.
Headnote:
Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure - Cancellation of gift deed and perpetual injunction - The court allowed the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code, restraining the appellants from interfering or raising any construction on the disputed property.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents filed a suit seeking cancellation of a gift deed and perpetual injunction, alleging that despite being co-sharers of the disputed property, a gift deed was executed and the appellants were trying to raise construction on the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court disposed of the appeal with directions to the lower court to proceed with the trial expeditiously, based on the undertakings given by the counsels for both parties to not seek adjournments during the trial.
Issues: Cancellation of gift deed, perpetual injunction, expeditious trial
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the statements and undertakings given by the counsels for both parties, leading to the disposal of the appeal without delving into the merits of the case.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of with directions to the lower court to proceed with the trial expeditiously.
JUDGMENT
Ravindra Maithani, J. - Instant appeal is preferred against the order dated 10.02.2021, passed in Original Suit No. 59 of 2020, Ramesh Chandra Tiwari and others Vs. Yadav Chandra Mungli and others (for short, "the suit"), by the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Almora. By the impugned order, the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, "the Code") has been allowed and the appellants have been restraint to interfere or raise any construction on the disputed property.
2. The suit has been filed by the respondents seeking cancellation of a gift deed as well as for perpetual injunction. According to the respondents, they are the co-sharer of the property in dispute, but despite directions of the court, a gift deed was executed and the appellants are trying to raise construction on the disputed property and interfering in it. In the suit, an application under order 39 rule 1 & 2 of the Code was filed which has been allowed, as indicated hereinabove. Aggrieved by the said, instant appeal has been filed.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. After arguing at some length learned senior counsel for the appellants would submit that the appeal may be decided with the directions to the court below to decide the suit within a shortest time frame after hearing the matter on the day-to-day basis. He gives an undertaking that the appellants will not seek any adjournment during the trial of the suit.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents, who have already filed a caveat, also assures and gives an undertaking that in case, trial of the suit proceeds on day-to-day basis the respondents will not seek any adjournment.
6. The Court records the statements given by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants as well as by the learned counsel for the respondents.
7. Having considered the matter, this Court does not see any reason to make any interference in view of the statements made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. Therefore, without adverting to the merits of the case this appeal is disposed of with the directions to the court below to proceed with the trial as expeditiously as possible in accordance with the case management, which is maintained by the Court.
