Kailash Prasad Sahu vs Smt. Vidya Bai

Heard on I.A. No. 9911/2013, an application u/s 151 of the CPC filed by the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that respondent had filed a suit seeking the relief of specific performance of contract which was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 23.11.2011. It was further submitted that though the trial Court had granted an order of injunction restraining the appellant No. 1 from alienating the suit property, in violation of order of injunction, the appellant No. 1 has alienated the suit property to the appellant No. 2. It is further submitted that appellants have no right to oppose the prayer made by the respondent in the application and the trial Court be directed to execute the sale deed in favour of respondent and the respondent may not be put in possession of the suit property and execution of sale deed in favour of respondent may be subject to result of the appeal. It is further submitted that sale deed executed in favour of appellant No. 2 is void in view of law laid down by Supreme Court in Jehal Tanti and Others Vs. Nageshwar Singh (dead) through L.Rs., .

On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the appellant No. 2 has opposed the prayer on the ground that respondent seeks execution of the decree without delivery of possession of the suit property. It is also pointed out from the prayer clause of the application that, in fact, the 2-respondent has also prayed for a relief of assignment of decree and the appellant No. 2 is in possession of the suit property in view of sale deed executed in his favour.

We have considered the respective submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. A Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.7.2013 has permitted impleadment of appellant No. 2. Admittedly, against the aforesaid order the respondent has preferred SLP before the Supreme Court which is pending adjudication and the sale deed has been executed in favour of appellant No. 2 who is in possession of the suit property.

In our considered opinion and in the facts of the case, in case, the sale deed is permitted to be executed in favour of the respondent, the same would lead to unnecessary complications. Therefore, we are not inclined to accede to the prayer made by the respondent. Accordingly, I.A. is dismissed.