Court No. - 11 Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 251 of 2010 Petitioner :- Smt. Malti Singh And Ors. Respondent :- Iind Additional District Judge Bahraich And Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Rakesh Gupta Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.
Notices on behalf of respondent no.1 has been
accepted by learned Standing Counsel.
Issue notices to respondent nos. 2 to 5 to show cause
why the writ petition should not be admitted.
List in the week commencing 22.2.2010.
Sri Rakesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner for
the purposes of interim relief submits that initially a suit
has been filed by respondent nos.2 and 3, which is
registered as Suit No.398/06 and in the said suit the
petitioner, who was the respondent, had moved an
application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for dismissing
the suit (annexure no.4 to the writ petition). The said
application was allowed by the trial court by order dated
17.3.2008. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.3.2008 Sri
Jaggannath Singh and Maheshwar Singh, respondent
nos. 2 and 3 filed an appeal, which was numbered as
Appeal No.27 of 2008 and the same was allowed by
order dated 25.11.2008 passes by the respondent no.1
and further the matter was remanded back to the trial
court to adjudicate and decide the same, hence the
present writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
the order, which is passed by the trial court is null and
void as such the agreement, which is sought to be
relied by the plaintiff is null and void in absence of
registration.
Prima facie the submission made by learned counsel for
the petitioners appears to be correct as such till the next
date of listing further proceedings in Regular Suit
No.398 of 2006 pending before the Civil Judge (Junior
Division), Bahraich shall remain stayed.
Order Date :- 28.1.2010
Pramod