Patna High CourtC.Misc./227/2016dismissed

Sri Bajrang Prasad Agarwal @ Bajrang Prasad Goenka And ANR v. Sri Satish Kumar Goenka

2016-09-20Mr. Justice Mungeshwar Sahoo2 pages

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.227 of 2016 (4) dt.20-09-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.227 of 2016 ====================================================== Sri Bajrang Prasad Agarwal @ Bajrang Prasad Goenka & Anr .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

Sri Satish Kumar Goenka .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mohit Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 20-09-2016 Heard learned counsel, Mr. Mohit Kumar, appearing for the petitioner on I.A. No. 7546 of 2016.

This application has been filed for substitution of the legal representatives of petitioner No.1, who died on 28.06.2016. In view of the submission of the learned counsel, this interlocutory application is allowed. The legal representatives are substituted. They have already filed vakalatanama. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on merit. It appears that the eviction suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent under the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 against the petitioners. The suit was decreed. Against the said decree, the petitioners filed title appeal. Title appeal has been dismissed by the appellate court. Against the said judgment and decree, second appeal being S.A. No. 248 of 2015 has been filed before this Court, which is still pending. According to learned

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.227 of 2016 (4) dt.20-09-2016 counsel for the petitioner himself, an application for stay under Order 41 rule 5 C.P.C. has been filed in the second appeal. In the meantime, the decree-holder filed an application for delivery of possession. By the impugned order, the court below has allowed the said application on the ground that no stay order has been obtained from the High Court. In my opinion, therefore, there is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the executing court. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous application is dismissed.

The petitioner may press his application filed under order 41 Rule 5 C.P.C. in the second appeal.

brajesh/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) U