226 of 2001 and till that suit is finally decided, execution should be stayed and the decree holder should be restrained from interfering with the possession of the appellant plaintiff of Title Suit No.
140 of 1991.
4 Shambhu Prasad and defendant No.5 Binod Kumar sold their share in the property in respect of which the suit was pending, to the appellant by a registered sale deed dated February 15, 2000.
140 of 1999 was filed by the respondent on April 10, 1999 and so called registered sale deed was entered into between defendant Nos.
In the judgment rendered by Sub Judge VI, Purnia, it was observed that though the defendants were duly served with the summons and there was publication of summons also in daily newspaper, the defendants did number appear.
It was asserted in the plaint that the appellant Usha Sinha had purchased the property and was the absolute owner thereof.
The application came to be rejected by the Court on August 16, 2003.
By the said order, the High Court allowed the Revision filed by respondent No.
13 of 2003.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent approached the High Court by filing Revision Petition.
140 of 1999 was number legal and valid and companyld number be executed against her.
140 of 1999 on April 10, 1999 against 1 Arun Choudhary, 2 Poonam Choudhary, 3 Sukhdeo Singh, 4 Shambhu Prasad, and 5 Binod Kumar in the Court of Sub Judge VI, Purnia.
It was held that plaintiff had right and title over the suit land and he was entitled for recovery of possession of land shown in Schedule B. The appellant, Binay Kumar Sinha, Pawan Kumar Choudhary and Ratandeo Prasad Choudhary filed Title Suit No.
140 of 1999 had wrongfully and illegally filed a suit for recovery of possession of property.
The plaintiff and his witnesses were examined and on the basis of the said evidence, the suit was decreed.
It was, therefore, prayed that the decree passed in Title Suit No.
The application was registered as Misc.
No numberice was served to the defendants, or to the appellant purchaser of property and the decree was illegal, inexecutable and null and void.
226 of 2001 .
10 of 2002 was filed by the respondent plaintiff who was the decree holder.
It was further stated that a substantive suit was filed by the appellant being Title Suit No.
The doctrine of lis pendens, hence, applies to such sale.
It was further stated that the respondent plaintiff of Title Suit No.
The present appellant filed an application for injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Order 21, Rule 29 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 hereinafter referred to as the Code against the respondent decree holder, inter alia, companytending that the ex parte decree passed in Title Suit No.
Short facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit being Title Suit No.
15315 OF 2006 K. THAKKER, J. Leave granted.
In the application, it was stated by the appellant that she had purchased the property by a registered sale deed dated February 15, 2000 that she had also filed Title Suit No.
140 of 1999 which was pending if during the pendency of the substantive suit filed by her, ex parte decree is executed, irreparable loss and injury would be caused to her.
4 and 5 on one hand and the appellant on the other hand on February 15, 2000 i.e. during the pendency of the suit.
The respondent companytested the application companytending that numbersuch application companyld lie under Order XXI, Rule 29 of the Code.
1998 OF 2008 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CIVIL NO.
1 herein decree holder respondent for short and set aside the order passed by the Sub Judge VI, Purnia.
226 of 2001 in the Court of Sub Judge I, Purnia against respondent Dina Ram and others.
13 of 2003.
During the pendency of the said suit, defendant No.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
It was also fraudulent, companylusive and was obtained by suppressing true and real facts.
226 of 2001 for setting aside ex parte decree in Title Suit No.
The case was fixed for ex parte hearing vide an order dated April 10, 2001.
On May 24, 2001, ex parte decree was passed against the defendants in Title Suit No.
10 of 2002 was pending.
The present appeal is filed by the appellant herein obstructionist appellant for short against the judgment and order dated July 4, 2006 passed by the High Court of judicature at Patna in Civil Revision No.
113 of 2004.
