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
12 paragraphs · 243 wordsGoutam Bhaduri, J
Challenge in this petition is the order dated 21.12.2015 in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.12/2015 by the District Judge, Surajpur, whereby the order
passed by the Civil Judge, Class-I allowing the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, has been affirmed.
Perusal of the order would show that the plaintiff/respondent herein had filed a suit for permanent injunction and declaration in respect of the suit
land that they are in possession of the suit land and that they may be declared to be the absolute owner in such suit, an application under Order 39
Rule 1 & 2 CPC was preferred, which was allowed. The order would show that the trial Court and the appellate Court have recorded that the
plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land. Prima facie the plaintiffs were found in possession of the suit land and the source of ownership is also been
held in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. Consequently, taking into consideration the balance of convenience the injunction was granted in favour of
the respondent/plaintiff.
After going through the order and the document, I do not find that the finding of fact arrived at by both the Courts below is perverse, which requires
interference in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In view of this petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. However,
the trial Court is requested to expedite the trial on merits.