KAMESHWAR VISHWAKARMA vs STATE OF JHARKHAND, THROUGH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GARHWA

Mr. S.L. Baranwal, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent nos. 4 and 5 are proforma respondents who have

appeared through Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel. Insofar as, respondent no.3 is concerned, the learned Senior counsel for the

petitioners submits that the petitioners have compromised the matter with respondent no.3 and accordingly, this writ petition shall stand dismissed

against the respondent no.3.

The respondentÂ​State is represented through Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, learned JC to SC (L&C).

The petitioners are aggrieved of the order dated 17.07.2008 passed in Misc. Appeal No.8 of 2007, by which order dated 23.06.2007 declining the

application for injunction has been affirmed.

Title Suit No.84 of 2005 was instituted by the petitioners for declaration of their right, title and possession over scheduleÂA properties and for a

declaration that exÂ​parte order dated 25.11.2003 and the decree dated 11.12.2003 are not binding on them. In the pending suit, the plaintiffs filed an

application under Order XXXIXÂ Rule 1 and 2 CPC which was dismissed by the trial Judge. In order dated 23.06.2007 the trial Judge has observed

that the plaintiffs in support of their claim, that the scheduleÂA properties belonged to their grandÂfather which was inherited by their father, have not

produced any documentary evidence. The appellate court has noticed that the defendants' right, title and interest over the suit land has been

confirmed by a decree of the court. In Eviction Suit No.1 of 2003, the defendants have succeeded against the plaintiffs. Both the courts have found

concurrently against the plaintiffs on the questions of balance of convenience and a possible irreparable loss to the plaintiffs. Â

In the above facts, I am not inclined to exercise powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

However, the suit which was instituted in the year 2005, in my opinion, needs to be disposed of expeditiously and accordingly, the trial Judge is

directed to dispose of Title Suit No.84 of 2005, within one year.

            Â