IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SA No.317 of 2004
Binod Kumar Chaurasia
Versus
Shyam Keshary & Ors
-----------
22. 09.11.2011 I.A.No.6171/2011.
Heard the parties.
This interlocutory application has been filed on
behalf of the appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 read with
Sections 94 and 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for
injuncting/restraining the defendant-respondent 1st party
not to evict the appellant in any manner or dispossessing
him from the suit premises i.e. shops/gumties situated
over the suit plot. No.197 till the disposal of the said suit.
The plaintiff/appellant has filed the title suit
claiming the suit land as his purchased land but has lost
in the suit as well as in the appeal and thereafter this
second appeal has been filed. The defendant respondent
has filed an eviction suit against the plaintiff-appellant
for his eviction from a Gumty and the said eviction suit
is pending. From the impugned judgments, it appears
that both the courts have come to a concurrent finding of
fact against the plaintiff-appellant with regard to his title
2
over the suit land.
It appears that earlier the plaintiff-appellant had
filed a petition for stay of the proceedings of eviction suit
during the pendency of this second appeal but by order
dated 09.09.2008, after hearing the parties this court
rejected the said prayer holding that in the proceeding of
eviction suit quite distinct issues were involved therein
and the same could not be stayed in this second appeal.
The plaintiff-appellant has again made the same
prayer but by filing a petition under Order 39 Rule 1(c)
of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the facts stated
above, it is clear that no relief as prayed for by the
plaintiff-appellant can be granted with regard to any
matter/issues arising in the eviction proceeding for which
the plaintiff-appellant might have remedies elsewhere.
There is no merit in this interlocutory
application. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
( V. Nath, J.)
Nitesh