Court No. - 11 Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 427 of 2009 Petitioner :- Sunder Lal And Ors. Respondent :- Narendra Bux Singh And Ors Petitioner Counsel :- Ajay Sharma Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.
Heard.
Admit.
Issue notice.
Summon the lower court record.
The appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law as framed
by the learned counsel for the appellant:-
“Whether the appellate court is justifiable under law and has rightly passed
the judgment and decree to return of plaint to the plaintiffs/respondents
under Order -7, Rule-10 of C.P.C., where the claim of the
plaintiffs/respondents in plaint was declaration for pre-emption right under
Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act and where Section 336 of the U.P.Z.A.
and L.R. Act specifically barred the revenue court to entertain the suit for
claim of right of pre-emption?”
Learned counsel for the purpose of interim relief submits that the learned
appellate court has also not considered the facts while deciding the appeal that
the suit filed by the plaintiff for cancellation of the sale deed in the year, 1976
and learned trial court after concluding the trial decided the said suit on
22.2.1996 and dismiss the said suit and against the said decree the opposite
parties/plaintiff filed an appeal which has been decide by the appellate court
on 7.8.2009 ignoring all the issues which were decided in favour of the
appellants by the trial court and passed the judgment and decree to return of
plaint to the opposite parties/ plaintiffs under Order 7 , Rule 10 of C.P.C.
after laps of 33 years such type of order is not justifiable in the eyes of law.
Prima facie, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant
appears to be correct . Till the next date of listing , the parties are directed to
maintain status quo in respect of the property in dispute as it exists today.
Order Date :- 9.8.2010
dk/
