IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA M.A. No. 328 of 2009 OM PRAKASH PANDIT, SON OF SRI RAMANAND PANDIT, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- KANKARBAGH, ROAD ‘MANGAL BHAWAN’, P.O. & P.S.- KANKARBAGH, DISTRICT – PATNA. ….. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT Versus 1(a) UMA DEVI, W/O DAYANAND PANDIT, RESIDENT OF DELLUCK CHHOTI BADALPURA, P.S.-KHAGAUL, DISTT.- PATNA. 1(b) ASHA DEVI, W/O SURESH PANDIT, RESIDENT OF BIRSA NAGAR HOLDING NO. 322, ZONE-6, JAMSHEDPUR, JHARKHAND. 1(c) USHA DEVI, W/O DR. SATISH KUMAR, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- JAGDISHPUR, SHIV MANDIR KE SAMNE, P.S.- JAMALPUR, DISTRICT – MUNGER. 1(d) PUSHPA DEVI, W/O MINAL RANJAN, C/OU. N. SRIVASTAV, NEAR MAI ASTHAN, RESIDENT OF AAM GOLA, MUZAFFARPUR. 1(e) SUSHILA DEVI, W/O DIWAKAR PRASAD, C/O LATE DR. SUKHARI PANDIT, R/O KAILU CHAK, P.S.- MASAURHI, DISTRICT – PATNA. 1(f) BABY DEVI, W/O ARUN PANDIT, R/O DURGA ASTHAN GALI, P.S./ & DISTT.- SHEIKHPURA. 2. MOHAMMAD MAKAUDDIN, SON OF MOHAMMAD MOINUDDIN. 3. MOHAMMAD JAFFAR @ LAL BABU, SON OF MOHAMMAD MATIUR RAHMAN. DEFENDANT RESPONDENTS NO. 2 AND 3 RESIDENTS OF MOHALLA ISHAPUR OPPOSITE PATLIPUTRA CENTRAL SCHOOL PHULWARI, P.O. AND P.S.- PHULWARI SHARIF, DISTRICT – PATNA. …… DEFENDANTS 2ND PARTY RESPONDENTS 4. SHEO SHANKAR PANDIT @ SHEO SHANKAR KUMAR @ MUNNA. 5. GAUTAM PANDIT @ CHUNNU. 4 & 5 ARE SONS OF SRI RAMA NAND PANDIT 6. MOST. RENU DEVI, WIFE OF LATE SHANKAR PANDIT 7. SRI SURAJ PRAJAPATI, SON OF LATE SHANKAR PANDIT. 8. SRI RAHUL KUMAR, SON OF LATE SHANKAR PANDIT. DEFENDANTS RESPONDENTS 4 TO 8 ALL RESIDENTS OF MOHALLA – KANKARBAGH ROAD, MANGAL BHAWAN, P.O. AND P.S.- KANKARBAGH, DISTRICT – PATNA. ….. PERFORMA DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS ----------- 6 18.04.2011 Heard Sri Gajendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the appellant. 2 The present appeal was filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 06.04.2009 passed by Sub Judge -I , Patna in Title Suit No. 412 of 2008. By the said order learned court below has rejected the petition filed on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. The plaintiff-appellant had filed Title Suit No. 412 of 2008 for a declaration that ‘bai- beyana’ agreement (agreement to sale) dated 27.01.1999 executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant nos. 2 & 3 who are respondent nos. 2 & 3 in this appeal as illegal and not binding on the plaintiff besides other relief. Before the court below an objection was also filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 & 3. It was clarified by the respondent nos. 2 & 3 who are defendant nos. 2 & 3 that after execution of agreement to sale the defendant no. 1 who was father of the plaintiff had already executed absolute sale deed in favour of the purchaser after receiving the consideration 3 amount. After hearing the parties the learned court below rejected the petition for grant of ad-interim stay. I have perused the impugned order as well as heard learned counsel for the appellant. The court is of the opinion that since after execution of the agreement to sale absolute sale deed was already executed the court below had rightly considered that neither any prima facie case nor balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and has rightly rejected the petition filed by the appellant. I don’t see any error in the impugned order. Accordingly, the present appeal stands rejected. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that suit was filed in the year 2008 and almost all the parties have already appeared and as such it would be appropriate that this court may direct the court below to decide the suit within specified time. The court is of the opinion that a direction can be issued to the court below to take 4 steps for expeditious disposal of the suit. With the above observation the appeal stands rejected. Praful (Rakesh Kumar, J.)