Ashok Kumar vs Kunjan Ram Maurya

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri Ali Hasan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Aijaz Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the caveator.

With the consent of the parties, writ petition is finally disposed of.

This petition has been filed against the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Jaunpur on 24.9.2015 in Misc. Appeal No. 3 of 2015(Kunjal Ram Maurya and others v. Ashok Kumar and other whereby the appeal filed against the interim injunction has been allowed, set aside the interim injunction order and the matter was remanded to the trial court for deciding the application for interim injunction afresh according to law.

The reasons for allowing the appeal are that the trial court has not recorded finding in respect of a prima facie case, irreparable loss and balance of convenience for granting interim injunction.

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession over the land shown by the letter G H I D in the plaint map and raising any construction over it. The trial court issued an Amin Commissioner for spot inspection who submitted his report on 20.7.2013. Thereafter, application for interim order heard before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) II and was allowed vide order dated 8.12.2014. According to the plaintiff disputed land G H I D was a part of the land, which falls in his share during private partition between the parties, therefore, the parties are liable to maintain status quo on the spot during the pendency of the suit and on this ground, the court below directed for maintaining status quo on the spot regarding the disputed land during the pendency of the suit. The map of the spot shows that the land of the plaintiff and defendant is quite different on the spot. If the highlighted portion of the disputed land is owned by the defendant then on this portion defendant did raise construction over the land fell in his share. The disputed land is at the end of west of the construction of the defendant towards north of the share of the defendant. Therefore, the case taken by the plaintiff that he has left some land for air, light as well as for passing rainy water, prima facie, appears to be correct. In such circumstances, plaintiff, has prima facie case and the order of the trial court directing the parties to maintain status quo does not suffer from any illegality.

In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the appellate court dated 24.9.2015 is set aside and the order of the trial court is sustained and the trial court is directed to proceed with the case expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.