m. T®a ^ ^T,.aEt^sy8. MIS6. PLSWVWf Kanal. Seni soa of Steci Brijmohaa Sarai, aged 27 yeaz's» rasident o£ Sa»a,}u Bagieha Masangaaj, Bila^iar, Talisil & Msta?iet Bilaspuz? (G,%}d ! '?- iSBfiWiBBNTS iyai^aTS ,'aasus: tji jg^'Sakha.Eanaged 89 years sen of Kase'anudas, easte-Satnami, .villg i, ,Tal|g MHyte^tlha Res-fe BCTEi,; Bista'iet^ BilaspBr!( G*:S«,)8 ^i^-si^E.afc: nBi:ss:8iB.,:aaed''SSI.y®aES, ^/•"2^'^s.l_..': ..^ • ^_~ ,,::'' ~ _ ^<.,^p'"s®aiof KaBa.N:d<ttn Sy'easte-' Botwa 4^'^.'$'^ ... • A-- .'S^ «.•")il*<>inu»i QecupA'y.ort -BusinesSi <•*'^.^c^'f^J\ ' ~ ' ^^^:''\ :.aesi«terat nf SaAar Bazae, Bi3,a^ur ^'f^s^ ' ~ -'.~.'7"."_7'"'-~—'"""''-~'~7" ^•'^y"' TahsiJ. aad @ls1ari.et Bllaq»ur (60) '^'"i:---' :'.. . .. <'.'•• svsfa-WBiBs. ^| "State; of'€hhaittsBarb Thioygb - e®J.lee'tor, Bitaspuy (e,^6,}|i 43 »i.E J^ri XI-HC-22 ^s?':z{^eig,,gE^y<*jio»;lgt;ii*i3< :3I^I^iI ; <ii*isf§? Sti^WB?^^! t- ^^»' sss^s ^-wiw^lta 30.7.2004 . ApgeUant tiyiShii M. B. •^,^ ^L .Respondents; No,. F.and- 2 ^) . ' ,':' IHcard;l/.:::-,;.'':;i::,-^'l;; Ttie appeUaiit has preferj? aggrieyed by the order dated Additional District Judge; <Bil4! wherebv leamed eourt below 4 appcUant uiider pitlcr 39 Ri^ restramiag the allenation of fhej aaybody, ^ ' ^. The bnef f^ts.-leactuig ti| i^spondent No.t arul fais wife; beanng Khasra No. 258 aad 259| acre respeGtively; total 1.42 acr| sale tiie property with the \ . ,..'.•'.'.-.: ••• • :• .;. , . '•••" . ••' ••' •.•':••""•:•-• 25,000/- per acre^ and.he iscei from. the appellant. SinGe the tltercfbre it was agreed fliat afte} record he woiild /eXecUte ttie sa| name of fhe Respondent No.l Respondent No.l startEd therefbre the apgeUaat seat Rcspondcnt No. 1 to cxccute; Respondent No.l.instead o£exe< appellant transfeirpd the said Ag^iwal avoidln tttc 'sbi'iiW'^-) '*iiqaf^i'1%Izt^f"RgR %^gq 3*1^1 uwal, Advocate. • ^.,. . '\ iv ShriAnaat Bajpayee, Advocate. id this miscellaaeoys appeal being >th April,2004 passed by the First (Spur ia Civfl Suit No. 14-A/2004 ijected the applicatiori filed by fhe lcs 1 aud 2 sccking dircction for property by the Respondent No.2 to fi]iag of this appeal are that fhe ^yere owner of the agricultural land ]admieasuriug arca 0,88 acrc and 0.74/ appellaiit ^ He entered jnto aa agreelnent on 26i.8,20Q;Sat ttu; rate of Rs. [red Rs. I500Q/- as advance inoney [wife pf the Respondent- No.l di|d tr la.utating his iiamc 'm. th.c revcnSc te deed as fte said laad was in f&e as weU as his wJ&--However, tiie jng the execution!, of the sale deed notice on 29.1.2004 askmg the salc dccd. In spite of fhat fhc jutiilg the sale deed iu favour of the illegaUy to the Respoudent No.2 by XI-He-22. . siitei'^i • R'ft*,sfis? ^Wft^^'f g^^)BH^%^aNBMii-laisll*lil< - (^^^f^'^^^:^^. s^'^:ijEi2^^:13.1 °S ^^KiU.....^.»....».i..^...2()o- '8WW a>**i«n ft^' sn^iVfflWtiteT 2. a legisteisft sale deed ^Elated 31^ iappellant pratBStEd'before the S^ -HQweyci-,^011 17.2.3©Q4;picRcspij appelIaiitsaymg1liatfli&agreem£|M Respoiideat No. 1 scas later, as ftt the saM laiid bfetroeen the Respou^ Thereaffer the'appeUaat fife^ of thc coittract agam.st fhe RcspQ4dent sale deed by ihe Respeadent No. Alongwife the civU STIJA^ apB^ Order 39 Rules;! anda QCMae intermi iajuiiction, wluch was pQ11P I havc Iicard lcamcd cGtinsc! Mr. H. B. Agarwal, learaed (j the leamed trial Court has wronglj that he is not ia. possessiQn ol alongwith other persons filed afB^ fhc posscssion of tBc appeUant tB{ relied uppn ttipse affidavtts and, sl in possession. | On the other haud SIlri. Aaalut Respondeats No. 1 |and 2 srgeted lcgaland thcre is n&iiTcgularity.. Having heard {leamed coulis impugned order. A Iperusal of pai that mi order to grov^ hi&.priii^a <*wii'f<}l"i '*jpraf 41^3 <T<n<si< ^? arRtiti an^r Jaxiuary, 2004; again.st wluch the ib-RegistraT on 3rd; February, 2004. )ildcht No. 1 rcplied thc noticc of thc ;sale between the appeUant aud l.ere was ateeady agreement to SeU of lentNo.l aad 2. a civil suitfor specific perfonnance No. 1 as wcU as cfaallcngiiig thc jil favour Of tfae Respondent No. 2. ^iit^also moved au spplicatton under |ode • <tf 'GiviI Procedure fbr grant of ijiy allowed emd partly rejected. fbr tticparticS. ; lounsel for the appeUant argued that rejected the praydr of fhe appellant tbe disputed lactd. The appellaiit |avit befgre the trial Court showiug t^ic&re the trial Court ought to hav^ touM tiaye held fhat the appellaat i$t Bajpayee, learaed counselfor the that the order of]the ttial Court is ^l fbr tbe partaes I ,have perused ttte d|a-8 of the unpugaed order reveals facie case and possession the XL.HC-22 ^^^Btli-t*!,; IWrrlSK •'.aii^ffai,, 'ffrtttfK-^? ;^ {i<^^:'»(i<i ^- airaMi a>*ii«h :,:f:gn^":?q3R^':'"^_,?]^, ...^si.^^yis^ ^^^...^.^^•yffff. ^RFi^T'^cT^R ^ft? 2. a.ppli<jation whdreas appeUatit fifed aBtulavit of hitu^i ^Duh^,iB,,siipport of.the ^agpcllaat.isaiLposscsgion; ^fiIeSByMieresgiQjBfleBisheretnl fceamfid Ifiiroer Goiut after peru^i inention. ia the docuiiient of at the possession of-the disputed Even thc notiGc; dated 29.1 Respondent No.l'for executin^ appeUaat is iu possession. applicatiotis a.biagwitli the do| BUaspur as also 'beS:( :?the Na3 also thc appcllanfhadaot au admitted posttioa'tiiat fhe illtmiafely fhe leamed lower Col prove the prmia facie case and i It is true that iiofhinelial >:-/^- the agrcGilicnt ^- salc Siven to ttie appetlant. Smularl the notice dated 29.1.2004 application inoved before fhe ^ inentioned that he is ia possesS elfaud ofoiie Maiiish Sdni and Uuiesh ia which it is irienfioned that the pn the contrarv thc afBdavits wcre fhatjlie appeBaut is itot to possessiOD.. ^mg fhe record observed fhat fhere is no 4part land and in order to show /s , . ; .. agreeiaent d(^ sale ttie appcll4itt material on record, which mas possesgion ia coiapliaace of fh' •tiiW'fl-t'wretf ^'fesf';(N?gR ^r siNff aii^r . incntiDncd ireement ^A'sale dated 26.8.2003 that laadwas Itaaded over to fhe appellant, |2004 sent tiy thc appcllaat to fhc sale deed does not inentloa that the ft-osi that the appellaut moved (syiueiits before ftfe S.D.O. (Revenue) Tahsitdar; Bitha jn tBose applications that hc is ia posscssion aiid if is jland m. question is a open land and jirt held fhat the appenaat has failed to sjected the application. I beenlnentioiled jn the docuiaent i.e. Iposscssioii of tfac disputGd laad ^as l|y the appenaiit has not mentione.(|< ia regardiag possession and in the I.D.O. aud Naib TahsiklarlLe faas not ifon.As fhe larul in| questron is an. open |fhe posscssion, aftcr cxccutuig thc has not produced any concrete indicate or show that he had taken f-sate; iSierefore, I am of XI-HC-22 !.'^~ \^-*^ •3^';ansi@ ^^SS'?'%BiIS? iimw sti*u<*i^ SS^b 'R«iti(T""""""""""""""" !tit'siict^'< tiw''itlt®'3•<!»'»'< •^anN^aifel , SII^fSR few3ii^i ^i*tl<ti ^t-tl^fl sffl^I'TOIKFt^te - ^l fbe opiiuou. fbat fhe trial Co\ OTriviQ.g at the decision that th|( SiGie; case^as: r^aTdS ^tlic pos^ passiag ttis onler pa^tlie Ce.irt has exercised its discrel has veiy liinited JT.Lrisdijction td trial Court aad it caa beuiferj trial Court is peiycrse for the 4 & documeiit avaiiable ori recoy fhe appeBaut has failed to es1 iuterifireace^bvUus'Court, In fhe result tEe appei distiusscd aitd it is disiiusscd. In view of ttie above d 1466/2004 stand disposed of. urt lias Qot coxiLtuitted 'aiiy-iUegality ia ; appeIlaQtlias failed t6 proye his priina fc- . .'.' . •' • CSSKHI cEn thc disputed land aiui •whtte tea|iporar;; Hyunctmn ;applicatton fhe trial ioaaiy jurisdiction. The appeUate Court iaterfere wifh the order passed by the sred oiily whea tbe oider passed by the ; :ason that it is coiitrarv to thc cvidencc orcontrary to tti^: law and ia this case labltsh auy ofth.ese cQndifions seekin^ y fails and the saine is liable to be 1-der M(C) No. 636/2004 andI.A.No. Sd/- L.G- Bhadoo Jadge •(tftB-SfSi! lllilll^ '?;,