Writ petition challenging rejection of temporary injunction claimed trial court relied on inadequate property description. Held plaintiff failed to provide boundaries or map; trial court correctly rejected prayer; petition dismissed lacking merits.
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. - 36
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 334 of 2019
Petitioner :- Asif Ali Respondent :- Abdul Mannan And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bharat Pratap Singh,Anil Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
The orders of rejection of the temporary injunction application in Original Suit No.1974 of 2011 ( Asif Ali Vs. Abdul Mannan & others ) are under challenge in the present petition with the assertion that the trial court had committed illegality in making minitrial for decision on the temporary injunction application. The plaintiff being purchaser of the suit property, sought the relief of temporary injunction against the defendants who are illegally interfering in his possession over the suit property. The entire measurement of the suit property has been given in the plaint. The trial court has erred in looking to the right of the vendor of the plaintiff to hold that the suit property cannot be said to be in the position as has been given in the plaint.
Submission is that prima facie case being made out by the plaintiff has completely been ignored by the trial court. In case, the defendants are allowed to interfere in the possession of the petitioner i.e. his right to way is obstructed by raising construction, the entire purpose of filing of suit for injunction would frustrate.
All these submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner do not impress the Court from the careful reading of the plaint and the reasoning given by the trial court.
A careful perusal of the plaint indicates that the plaintiff has not given clear and complete description of the suit property. Paragraph no.1 of the plaint states that the plaintiff had purchased the Khasra No.60 etc. (measuring 2000 square yard) i.e. 167.2 square meter vide registered sale deed dated 09.10.2007 and is owner in possession thereof since thereafter.
Thus, though the measurement of the suit property, allegedly purchased by the plaintiff has been given at the foot of the plaint but the boundaries of the said plot has not been given. There is no plaint map which would indicate the correct position of the plot in question or disclose as to where the suit property can actually be found.
The defendants, on the other hand, are claiming their right in plot no.65 and they have come up with the categorical case that the plaintiff himself is a land grabber and under the garb of injunction, he is trying to grab the land of the defendants. The fact that the plaintiff has not given correct and complete description of the suit property, by bringing boundaries thereof or filing the plaint map, this Court does not find any error in the conclusion drawn by the trial court in rejection of the temporary injunction application. The first appellate court has rightly refused to interfere.
The present petition is found devoid of merits and hence dismissed .
Order Date :- 13.2.2019
Himanshu
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's rejection of a temporary injunction application due to alleged error in assessing the description of suit property.
Whether the plaintiff's failure to provide boundaries and a plaint map for the suit property renders the trial court's decision to reject the injunction application erroneous.
Asif Ali
Abdul Mannan
2 Others
Sunita Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
