Raj Kumar vs Banwari Lal and Another

Gopal Krishan Vyas

In this writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-plaintiff is challenging validity of order dated 19.07.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar in Appeal No. 3/2012, by which, the appellate court quashed the order dated 09.01.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar upon application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that trial court after taking into consideration entire facts and documents granted an interim order in favour of petitioner for the property in question and restrained the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner, but appellate court illegally reversed the findings given by the trial court and set aside the order passed by the trial court.

According to the petitioner, the order passed by the appellate court is totally contrary to fact and law, so also, upon wrong appreciation of evidence and record because as per facts after survey conducted by the Municipal Board, Anoopgarh, petitioner-plaintiff deposited house tax for disputed property which is evident from the receipts filed by hinm, therefore, it is established by the petitioner by way of producing documentary evidence that he is in possession of the property in question. The appellate court reversed the findings given by the trial court while granting temporary injunction in favour of petitioner in very casual manner, therefore, the order passed by the appellate court may be quashed and set aside and order passed by the trial court may be restored.

After hearing Learned Counsel for the petitioner, I have perused both the orders passed by the appellate court as well as by the trial court.

The main dispute is with regard to possession of house No. 7/163-A new No. 11/24, 7/163-B new No. 7/25 and house No. 7/163-C new No. 11/26 of Ward No. 7 new No. 11 of Anoopgarh.

The case of respondents is that they are having title of the property in question because the property in question was purchased in the year 1989 from one Ganga Ram S/o Shri Chabila Ram and they are in possession, therefore, the findings given by the trial court has rightly been reversed by the appellate court.

After perusing entire pleading and record of writ petition, it emerges that the receipts filed by the petitioner-plaintiff alongwith this writ petition do not speak that these receipts of house tax are not relevant for the purpose of deciding controversy of the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff for permanent injunction because respondents are having title over the property in question, therefore, the appellate court while relying upon these receipts and the fact that respondents are having title over the property in question, quashed the order passed by the trial court, in which, there is no illegality, more so, the findings given by the appellate court for reversing the order of trial court is based upon sound appreciation of evidence to ascertain whether prima facie case is made out or not. In view of above, I see no reason to interfere in this writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.