Petitioners filed a contempt petition against an order rejecting their temporary injunction application in a partition suit. The learned Judge dismissed the petition due to lack of merit but directed the trial court to expedite proceedings for six months.
CMP dismissed; lower court directed to expedite trial within six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 84 of 2021
1.Md. Saif Raza 2.Sayeeda Shehnaz 3.Atif Raza 4.Kasif Raza 5.Tausif Raza .... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus Md. Ishaque & Ors. .. ... ...Opp. Party(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
......... For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate For the Opp. Party(s) : Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate Mr. K. S. Nanda, Advocate
08/ 04.11.2022 . Heard the parties.
The instant CMP has been filed against the order dated 21.01.2021 (Annexure-11) passed by the learned Principal District Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Civil Misc. Appeal No.20 of 2019 as the same has been preferred by the plaintiffs/petitioners against the order dated 09.12.2019 (Annexure-10) by which the petition for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC has been rejected.
It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the plaintiffs have filed Original Suit No.222 of 2016 for partition of the suit property fully detailed in Schedule A & B of the plaint. The suit property is recorded in the name of Md. Ismail who had two sons, namely, Md. Ishaque and Md. Rashid. The plaintiffs /petitioners claim to be heirs and descendants of Md. Rashid.
It is further submitted that during pendency of the said Suit, the respondents started making new construction over Schedule-B property which will change the nature of the suit land and they are also alienating the suit property by selling the part of the suit property.
It is further submitted that the learned Principal District Judge has admitted that the plaintiffs had a prima facie case, as stated in concluding part of the impugned order.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opp. Parties has submitted that there is concurrent findings recorded by both the learned courts below that the prima facie case was not in favour of the plaintiffs and the construction per se will not change the nature of the suit property and they will not claim any favour of equity with regard to it.
There is concurrent order rejecting the temporary injunction petition. Considering rival submissions of the parties, I do not find any merit in the instant CMP.
-2-
Accordingly, the instant CMP stands dismissed.
However, the learned court below is directed to expedite the trial and conclude it preferably within a period of six months from the date /production of a copy of
this order.
( Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. )
Sandeep/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the instant Contempt Petition against the rejection of temporary injunction has any merit.
Whether the trial court below should expedite the trial of the partition suit.
Whether concurrent findings regarding prima facie case justify dismissal of the CMP.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Md. Saif Raza and Ors.
Md. Ishaque & Ors.
Gautam Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
