Judgment:
W.P.No.8867/2013 03.01.2014 Shri Ajay Sen, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Kuldeep Singh, learned counsel for respondent.
Heard on the question of admission.
By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners/defendants have assailed the order dated 21.12.2011, passed in Misc.
Civil Appeal No.8/2011, by the District Judge Ujariya, by which the order dated 15.7.2011, passed in Civil Suit No.3-A/2011, by the Civil Judge, Class-II Umariya, has been affirmed, stating that the Courts below have not seen the material evidence and have passed an order granting injunction against the petitioners and rejecting the appeal of the petitioners against the said injunction order.
It is contended that if such evidence is looked into, it would be clear that no injunction could be granted in favour of the respondent/ plaintiff.
The order impugned is looked into.
The trial Court while considering the application made by the respondent/ plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the CPC for brevity) has looked into the evidence which was placed on record.
It is found by the trial Court that the respondent/plaintiff has produced a sale deed executed in her favour, conferring the title on the land in suit.
In the revenue records, the name of the respondent/plaintiff was duly mutated.
Not a single document was ever placed on record by the petitioneRs.defendants that they were in possession of the land in suit.
The affidavits filed by the petitioners were also not disclosing such facts.
Only a statement was made in reply to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, but no evidence to this effect was produced and, therefore, the trial Court has rightly reached to the conclusion that a prima facie case was made out in favour of the respondent/plaintiff.
The balance of convenience was also tilted in favour of the respondent/ plaintiff and the irreparable loss would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff in case the temporary injunction is not granted.
Accordingly, the temporary injunction was granted by the trial Court.
While considering the appeal of the petitioneRs.again such documents were examined by the lower appellate Court and it has been categorically recorded that in revenue records placed on record of the Court, the possession of the respondent/plaintiff over the land in suit was proved and no document in rebuttal was produced by the petitioneRs.If they have any such evidence in their possession, but have deliberately not placed the same on record, it could not be said to be a folly on the part of the Court in granting temporary injunction to the respondent/ plaintiff or dismissing the appeal of the petitioners against such order of injunction.
There is no substance in the writ petition, which fails and is hereby dismissed.
(K.K.Trivedi) Judge A.Praj.