Vinod Kumar and Another vs Devi Bai and Others

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—The plaintiffs are in revision against an order dated 2.12.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Fast Tract Court, Karnal, whereby status quo order granted on 1.12.2009 has been vacated.

It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against Devi Bai and the Department of Consolidation, which was dismissed on 23.11.2009. The petitioners then filed Civil Appeal u/s 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ''CPC'') in which following order was passed by the Additional District Judge (FTC), Kamal on 1.12.2009:

Lower Court received. An application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC read with Section 151 CPC has been filed by appellant. Copy given. Now, to come up on 2.12.2009 for filing of reply to said application and arguments on the stay application as well as on the main appeal. Parties are directed to maintain status quo till then.

On 2.12.2009, on the statement of Paramjit Singh and his mother Roshni Devi, Learned Appellate Court vacated the stay granted on 2.12.2009 which gave a cause of concern to the petitioners to file the present revision petition.

It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners that Paramjit Singh and Roshni Devi are not arrayed as respondents in the appeal whereas vide order dated 1.12.2009 learned Appellate Court had directed parties to the appeal to maintain status quo. Therefore, on the statement made by Paramjit Singh and his mother Roshni Devi that they will be bound by the orders of the Appellate Court, stay order already granted should not have been vacated.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 has argued that Devi Bai had already sold the property in dispute to Paramjit Singh and Roshni Devi, therefore, she had no interest left in the litigation and as such Paramjit Singh and his mother Roshni Devi should be treated as parties to the litigation.

I have heard both the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance.

Even, if, it is presumed as alleged by learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 that the property in dispute has been sold by respondent No. 1 Devi Bai to Paramjit Singh and Roshni Devi, yet it is a matter of record that they are not parties in the appeal so far whereas vide order dated 1.12.009, the appellate Court had specifically directed the parties to maintain status quo and not the persons to whom rights have been assigned by the parties after the said order. The simple meaning of the word, which has been used by the learned First appellate Court on 1.12.2009 in the case, is ''parties'' which would be the parties who are arrayed as such in the appeal and not the subsequent purchaser of the rights of respondent No. 1" and as such not only the respondent No. 1 Devi Bai but also Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3-Ram Kumar have been directed by the learned Appellate Court to maintain status quo tilt then.

In view of the above discussion, present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. No costs.