VIJAY KUMAR Vs. TEHRI SARIYA COMPANY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Siddhartha Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) By filing this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the part of the order dtd. 24/12/2020 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.) Roorkee, District Haridwar in O.S. No. 139 of 2020, whereby notice has been issued to the defendant/respondent instead of granting ex-parte interim injunction and the order dtd. 7/10/2021 whereby dtd. 22/11/2021 has been fixed after appearance of the parties instead of passing any interim order of protection.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the recorded tenure holder in respect of the land in question which is adjacent to the industrial unit of the opposite party/respondent. The opposite party/respondent is taking all efforts to encroach the land of the petitioner, and, in such a situation where the respondent is a big company and the petitioner is a small cultivator, the balance of convenience lies in his favour, as well as he will suffer irreparable injury if order of injunction is not passed, therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically submitted that the action of the Civil Judge (J.D), Roorkee, District Haridwar in not passing any interim order on the application of temporary injunction is a failure on his part to exercise the jurisdiction vested on him and it will cause irreparable injury and grave injustice to the petitioner.