Disposed

Ganesh Shankar Mishra v. Virendra Chaturvedi and Another

Allahabad HC23 May 2024A227/2543/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Article 227 challenged an order maintaining status quo in a suit for declaration regarding property purchased by the petitioner. Relying on the respondent's concession that the order does not bind the petitioner, the court dismissed the petition as nothing further was required from the High Court.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's grievances redressed; order of status quo deemed not binding on petitioner; no further directions issued.

Ganesh Shankar Mishra vs Virendra Chaturvedi and Another — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:39064

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2543 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Ganesh Shankar Mishra Respondent :- Virendra Chaturvedi And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Anoop Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Sudhir Kumar Rai,Dhirendra Vikram Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Anoop Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Sri Piyush Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sudhir Kumar Rai, learned counsel for respondent No. 1.

¶7

The is proceeding to decide the matter with the consent of parties without issuing notices to respondent No. 2 inasmuch as petitioner has purchased the property from respondent No. 2 who is the wife of respondent No. 1.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner has purchased plot No. 1Ka/71 situated at Mohalla Prem Nagar, Shukla Ganj, District Unnao by way of registered sale deed on 03.03.2023 from respondent No. 2 who is the owner of the said property and the sale deed was existing in her name. After purchasing the said plot, the petitioner had applied for mutation in the record of the Nagarpalika Parishad, Gangaghat and the same has also been duly done by order dated 17.04.2023.

¶9

It is stated that respondent No. 1 who is the husband of respondent No. 2 had filed a suit before the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Unnao seeking a declaration of ownership with regard to the aforesaid disputed property situated at Plot No. 1Kha/71, Mohall Prem Nagar, Shukla Ganj, District Unnao and also praying for injunction restraining respondnt No. 2 for alienating the said property. The said suit was filed in January, 2023. During the said suit proceedings, the said plot was purchased by the petitioner.

¶10

In the said suit, the petitioner has also moved an application under Order 39 rule 1 & 2 CPC where the trial court rejected the said applicaton against which respondent NO. 1 had filed an miscellaneous civil appeal before the District Judge, Unnao. By means of impugned order dated 23.04.2024, the revisional court has allowed the miscellaneous civil appeal and directed

¶11

the parties to maintain status quo over the property in the suit proceedings.

¶12

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that he is not a party in the suit proceedings and he is a bonafide purchaser of the said plot for adequate consideration by means of a registered sale deed and without making him party the respondents are seeking to impose the order of the revisional court upon him also and for which purpose he has approached this Court assailing the said order.

¶13

At the very outset, learned counsel for appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 has fairly submits that the order of status quo would not be binding upon the petitioner and the order of the revisional court dated 23.04.2024 would be binding only upon respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 1 does not intend to impose the order dated 23.04.2024 upon the petitioner in case he will not alienate the property.

¶14

On the aforesaid statements being made by learned counsel for respondent No. 1, learned counsel for petitioner submits that his grievances is redressed and accordingly the order dated 23.04.2024 would not be enforceable upon the petitioner. He also submits that petitioner will not alienate the property during pendency of the aforesaid suit.

¶15

Accordingly, after recording the satisfaction of the petitioner with regard to statement made by the petitioner no further directions are required to be made by this Court and in light of the statements made by either parties and with their consent, the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶16

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 23.5.2024

¶18

Ravi/

¶19

Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ganesh Shankar Mishra v. Virendra Chaturvedi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Shankar Mishra v. Virendra Chaturvedi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ravindra Kumar Srivastava Vs Ayush Kumar and 6 Others

Bhanwareshwar Verma Vs Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Mahesh Malunjkar

Shri Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Fakira Vs Deputy Driector of Consolidation Sitapur and Others

Smt. Ram Dulari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Ganesh Shankar Mishra Vs Virendra Chaturvedi and Another