ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants on I.A No. 7086 of 2013.
It appears that copy of this I.A has not been served on the other side. It further appears that since many dates, nobody is appearing on behalf of the respondents and, therefore, the copy of the application could not be served on the learned counsel for the respondents. It will be evident from the order dated 08.07.2014
According to the learned counsel, during the pendency of this First Appeal, the plaintiffs-respondents are transferring the suit property and are trying to dispossess the defendants-appellants, therefore, if during the pendency of this First Appeal, the respondents are not restrained from transferring the suit property and also if they are not restrained from dispossessing the appellants, the appellants shall suffer serious loss and irreparable injury.
It appears that the plaintiffs-respondents filed the partition suit claiming half share in the suit property. The court below decreed the plaintiffs-respondent's partition suit recording a finding that there is unity of title and unity of possession between the parties.
So far the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the respondents are selling the suit property is concerned, it appears from paragraph 7 of the I.A whereby it is only stated that the respondents are transferring. However, at the time of hearing, the learned counsel submitted that some properties have already been transferred but there is no detail of any property transferred by the respondents and also there is no mention about which property is going to be transferred by the respondents. Therefore, only on the bald statement that the respondents are selling the property, no injunction can be granted.
So far the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the respondents are trying to dispossess the appellants is concerned, as stated above, the trial court has already recorded a finding that there is unity of title and possession and, therefore, there is no question of issuance of any restrained order. There is no averment in the application as to in which property the appellants are in exclusive possession and the respondents are trying to dispossess the appellants from that property.
It further appears that earlier by terms of order dated 15.09.2011, the appellants were directed to take steps for appeal notice on respondent nos. 4 and 5 as major in ordinary process but in spite of three years have passed, the said order has not been complied with by the appellants.
In view of the above facts, the injunction application is rejected. However, the appellants shall file the necessary requisites for appeal notice on respondent nos. 4 and 5 in ordinary process within two weeks from today.