Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd v. Shri Dhrub Shankar Prasad Narayan Singh

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Madhuresh Prasad For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL ORDER 4 04-01-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. The instant writ petition arises out of the order dated

7.1.2012 by which the court has refused to stay the execution proceeding. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was the tenant of the original plaintiff respondent nos. 1 to 10. Subsequently respondent nos. 11, 12 and 13 have purchased the land on which the petrol pump stood. Out of the three respondents, respondent no.11 was the lessee of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. Subsequently respondent nos. 11 to 13 made a prayer to be added as co-plaintiffs in the eviction suit which was allowed. The suit was decreed in favour of the landlord and an execution case was also filed by the substituted plaintiffs in this case. The petitioners being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court filed Title Appeal No. 28/2011. The impugned order refusing to stay the execution case has been challenged in this court. Notices were issued to the relevant parties. While hearing the writ application this Court did not pass any order staying effect of the impugned Patna High Court CWJC No.865 of 2012 (4) dt.04-01-2013 3 order. The Court had observed as follows:- “In the meantime, the District Magistrate, Patna, should keep in mind the safety etc. before the underground petrol premises.” is removed from In pursuance to the order passed in the execution case the decree was executed, and respondent nos. 11 to 13 came in possession of the premises. In the circumstances, the writ petition has become infructuous. Now the petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that respondent nos. 11 to 13 did not obey the order of this Court while removing the underground petrol tank as they have done it without the assistance of the District Magistrate who was to oversee that the underground tank should be removed safely. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 11 to 13 annexing the order of the trial court which indicates that respondent nos. 11 to 13 were directed to follow the order of the court and inform the District Magistrate for removal of the underground tank. According to respondent nos. 11 to 13 a letter was issued by them to the District Magistrate as well to the Incharge, Bihar Fire Service, Patna, giving them a date for removal of the underground tank. The Court is informed that the petrol tank has been removed some time in the month of October Patna High Court CWJC No.865 of 2012 (4) dt.04-01-2013 4

2012. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that respondent nos. 11 to 13 are liable for contempt as they have not acted as per the direction of this Court. It is further argued that the entire action has come to naught as the orders of this Court were not followed. This Court had not granted stay of further proceedings, when the matter was heard initially at the admission stage, therefore it would not be just and proper to deprive the decree-holder of the fruits of the decree by holding – the action of removal of the tank is null and void and that it should be reinstalled in the premises. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not think it proper to keep the matter pending on the ground that any such case of contempt is made out. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. The trial court is directed to expedite the disposal of Eviction Appeal No. 28 of 2011. (Sheema Ali Khan, J) mrl.