M.A. No. 930/03
24.06.2010
Appellant by Shri Nitin Pendharkar, Advocate.
Respondents No.2 and 3 by Shri LDS Baghel, Govt.
Advocate.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant submitted that during the
pendency of the present appeal, the respondent no.1 Smt.
Shanti Mishra has expired on 27.4.09 Her legal heirs have
already been brought on record. In view of the aforesaid,
he does not intend to move any application for substitution
of legal heirs of Smt. Shanti Mishra.
Accordingly, it is directed that name of respondent
no.1 Smt. Shanti Mishra be deleted during course of the
day.
So far as respondent no.6 Shri Ramesh Chandra
Mishra is concerned, it is reported that he has also
expired on 15.8.09 and an application under Order 22
Rule 4 for substitution of legal heirs has been moved
which is allowed. Necessary amendment may be carried
out in the cause title of the appeal during course of the
day.
Case is heard on merit.
This is an appeal preferred by the defendants
challenging the order dated 10.1.03 wherein the trial
Court has granted injunction in favour of the plaintiffs.
The trial Court has recorded a finding that the
respondents/plaintiffs were in possession of the suit
property. However, the said finding is only a prima facie
finding and the finding as such shall not affect in any way
in final adjudication of the suit. However, it is directed
that none of the parties shall create any third party right
on the suit property. It is also directed that the trial Court
shall decide the suit within a period of one year.
With the aforesaid observation, the present appeal is
disposed of.
(R.K. Gupta)
Judge
rao