AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 353 wordsL.N. Mittal, J.
C.M. No. 30977-CII of 2013:
Allowed as prayed for.
Main Case:
Plaintiffs have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 18.11.2011 (Annexure P-1). In appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the said order, learned appellate court, vide judgment dated 20.09.2012 (Annexure P-2), has partly allowed the claim of the plaintiffs for temporary injunction and defendants have been restrained from interfering in possession of the plaintiffs over 28 bighas land and 23 bighas 02 biswas land till final decision of the suit, but plaintiffs'' claim for temporary injunction regarding 16 bighas land of khasra no. 253 has been declined even by the appellate court. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed this revision petition for seeking temporary injunction regarding land of khasra no. 253 as well.
I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioners, on pointed inquiry, fairly conceded that there is no document on record to even prima facie depict that plaintiffs are in possession of the land of khasra no. 253. However, counsel for the petitioners referred to resolution passed by Gram Panchayat, thereby allowing owners of land adjacent to the banks of the river to cultivate the land adjacent to their land. However, the said document does not relate to land of khasra no. 253, which is entered in the ownership of Gram Panchayat. Consequently, plaintiffs are not entitled to temporary injunction regarding land of khasra no. 253. They have failed to make out the necessary three ingredients for temporary injunction regarding the said land. Impugned judgment of the lower appellate court, therefore, does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in this regard so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
The revision petition is meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine. However, nothing observed hereinbefore shall be construed as expression of opinion on merits of the suit.