PUSHPENDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS vs RAJKUMAR AND OTHERS

Manoj K. Tiwari, J. (Oral)Â

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.Â

Petitioners have filed a suit for permanent injunction and cancellation of sale deed, which was registered as Original Suit No. 50 of 2010 in the court

of Civil Judge (S.D.), Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. Along with their suit, petitioners have filed a temporary injunction application, which

was rejected by learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar vide order dated 29.11.2012. Thereafter, petitioners filed a

miscellaneous appeal, which too has been dismissed vide order dated 27.01.2018 by learned 1st Additional District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar.Â

Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioners have approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.Â

I have gone through the orders passed by learned trial court as well as appellate court. Both the courts below have considered the matter in detail

and arrived at a conclusion that the petitioners failed to prove their possession over the property in question. It has further been held that petitioners

are claiming title over the shop in dispute on the basis of a Will, but petitioners have not been able to make out any prima facie case for grant of

temporary injunction. Learned appellate court has also given cogent reasons for dismissing the appeal.Â

Grant of temporary injunction is purely dis judicious manner. This Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the exercise of discretion by courts

below.

In such view of the matter, there is no scope of interference in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is

devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Â

However, it is made clear that the trial court will decide the suit on its own merit, without being influenced by any observation made by this Court in

this order.  Â