Priyatosh Choudhary @ Pritosh Choudhary and ors. Vs. Mukta Choudhary and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- constitution of india. articles 12 & 226: [m. karpaga vinayagam, c.j., narendra nath tiwari & d.p.singh, jj] writ petition - maintainability - whether state co-operative milk producers federation ltd., is a state within meaning of article 12 ? - held, from perusal of relevant rules of byelaws, it is clear that state government has no role to play either in policy decision for raising funds for federation or its expenditure and thus have no financial control. further there is nothing to indicate that government has any functional and administrative control over federation. state government has no role to play in matter of appointment of any of officials of federation including managing director. federation is totally independent in all respects and in no way subservient to state government in conduct of its business. federation in no way can be termed as agency of state government and does not come within meaning of article 12 of constitution. writ petitions against federation is not maintainable. - the learned court below has failed to take into consideration that to check the multiplicity of the proceedings, a prohibitory order is to be passed.orderm.y. eqbal, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 5.7.2007, passed in partition suit no. 193 of 2006, whereby, the learned court below has refused to grant injunction, prayed by the plaintiffs-appellants in a suit for partition.there is no dispute that the suit property is a joint family property and both the plaintiffs and defendants are the co-sharers.2. learned counsel appearing for the respondents has also not disputed the fact that the suit property is a joint family property. however, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the persons in whose favour transfer has been made by the respondents during pendency of the suit have not been made party in the partition suit.3. the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is misconceived. at the very outset, the defendants-respondents ought not to have sold the property during pendency of the partition suit. even if such transfer is made, that will be subject to the decision of the partition suit and such transfer is also hit by lis pendense. the learned court below has failed to take into consideration that to check the multiplicity of the proceedings, a prohibitory order is to be passed. in my view, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.4. since the defendants-respondents have already sold portion of land, this court directs the parties to maintain status- quo till the disposal of the partition suit.5. since the suit itself is of the year, 2006 the learned court below is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible.6. with the aforesaid observations, this application stands disposed of.

Judgment:
ORDER

M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the Impugned order dated 5.7.2007, passed In Partition Suit No. 193 of 2006, whereby, the learned Court below has refused to grant injunction, prayed by the plaintiffs-appellants in a suit for partition.

There is no dispute that the suit property is a joint family property and both the plaintiffs and defendants are the co-sharers.

2. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has also not disputed the fact that the suit property is a joint family property. However, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the persons in whose favour transfer has been made by the respondents during pendency of the suit have not been made party in the partition suit.

3. The submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents is misconceived. At the very outset, the defendants-respondents ought not to have sold the property during pendency of the partition suit. Even if such transfer is made, that will be subject to the decision of the partition suit and such transfer is also hit by lis pendense. The learned Court below has failed to take into consideration that to check the multiplicity of the proceedings, a prohibitory order is to be passed. In my view, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.

4. Since the defendants-respondents have already sold portion of land, this Court directs the parties to maintain status- quo till the disposal of the partition suit.

5. Since the suit itself is of the year, 2006 the learned Court below is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible.

6. With the aforesaid observations, this application stands disposed of.