Smt. Santosh and Another vs Nisheet Rai Wahi

L.N. Mittal, J.—Suit has been filed by respondent-plaintiff Nisheet Rai Wahi against his mother and brother Santosh and Anuj Rai Wahi-petitioners as defendants. Plaintiffs case is that the suit house was owned by his father L.R. Wahi (since deceased) and accordingly, the plaintiff and both the defendants inherited the house in equal shares i.e. 1/3rd share each. The plaintiff has sought partition of the suit house.

Case of the defendants is that the house was purchased by National Paints Ltd. through Mr. L.R. Wahi as Director Incharge/Managing Director and was asset of the said Company.

Learned trial court, vide order dated 17.03.2010 (Annexure P-17), dismissed the plaintiff''s application for temporary injunction. However, appeal against the said order preferred by the plaintiff has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, vide judgment dated 22.05.2010 (Annexure P-18) and both the parties have been directed to maintain status quo regarding alienation, construction and possession of the suit property till disposal of the suit. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have filed this revision petition to assail judgment Annexure P-18 passed by the appellate court.

It may be mentioned that part of the suit property had been sold before filing of the suit, vide sale deed dated 12.02.2008 to one Ashok Sharma, who was ordered to be impleaded as defendant no. 2 to the suit, vide order dated 17.03.2010 (Annexure R-1). However, Ashok Sharma is not party to the instant revision petition and was also not party before the lower appellate court. Counsel for the petitioners stated that name of Ashok Sharma was deleted from the array of defendants subsequently because he had transferred portion purchased by him to defendant no. 2.

Heard. File perused.

Impugned status quo order passed by the appellate court is dated 22.05.2010. The same has remained in force for the last almost 03 years 03 months. Counsel for the parties stated that plaintiff had concluded his evidence and case was being adjourned for evidence of defendants. Counsel for defendants/petitioners also stated that respondent/plaintiff has also moved application for additional evidence.

Keeping in view all the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that instead of entering into elaborate details of version and counter-version of the parties, the ends of justice would be met if the trial court is directed to decide the suit expeditiously. As noticed hereinbefore, impugned judgment of the lower appellate court, directing both the parties to maintain status quo, has already remained in force for almost 03 years 03 months. Consequently, if the said order remains in force for some more period, not much harm would be caused to either party.

Resultantly, the instant revision petition is disposed of with direction to the trial court to decide the suit in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Nothing in this order shall have any bearing on the merits of the suit.