The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging orders rejecting an application for urgent interim protection in a land dispute. The Court found no manifest error as the petitioners concealed the dismissal of a prior injunction application and the pendency of another suit.
Petition dismissed; no relief granted to the petitioners.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 59
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1313 of 2019
Petitioner :- Shyam Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- Gulshan And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri Babu Lal Ram, Advocate holding brief of Sri Navin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners.
This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 08.11.2017 in Misc. Case No.271 of 2016 (Shyam Singh Vs. Manoj Kumar) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.3, Bulandshahr, whereby the application 4C2 filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners was rejected. Misc. Civil Appeal No.54 of 2017 filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners against the aforesaid order was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 29.01.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge, Khurja (Bulandshahr).
Aggrieved with these two orders, the plaintiffs-petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Briefly stated facts of the present case are that with regard to Khata No.153, Gata No.216 Area 0.1652 hectare, the plaintiffspetitioners filed O.S. No.504 of 2016 (Shyam Singh and others Vs. Gulshan and others) on 24.08.2016 in which on the same day an interim order was passed directing the defendants not to interfere with peaceful possession of the plaintiffs-petitioners with respect to the suit property mentioned in the plaint as G H I J.
According to the plaintiffs-petitioners, the defendants interfered with land in question despite, the interim order shown to them and as such the plaintiffs-petitioners filed application 4C2, which was rejected by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bulandshahr by the impugned order dated 08.11.2017.
Perusal of the impugned orders dated 08.11.2017 and 29.01.2019 show that the suit itself was filed by the plaintiffspetitioners by concealing the fact of dismissal of interim injunction application in the earlier Suit No.237 of 2007 and dismissal of Civil Appeal against that order of 19.03.2010 on the finding that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the
disputed property. The fact of pendency of a case under Section 201 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, was also concealed. On the facts the evidences on record, of court below, and that the petitioners are in possession, the application 4C2 was rejected and its rejection was upheld by the Appellate Court by the impugned order dated 29.01.2019.
I do not find any manifest error of law in the impugned orders, inasmuch as, the facts as briefly noted above, are not in dispute. Under these circumstances, the petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.2.2019 Atul
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Writ Petitioner established any manifest error of law in the impugned orders rejecting the interim injunction application?
Whether the rejection of the application 4C2 was based on grounds of concealment of pendency of prior litigation?
Shyam Singh And 2 Others
Gulshan And 7 Others
Surya Prakash Kesarwani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
