LAWS(UTN)-2015-11-42

MADAN SINGH Vs. KARTIK AND OTHERS

Decided On November 17, 2015
MADAN SINGH Appellant
V/S
Kartik And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 11.09.2015 (annexure-16), passed by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 78 of 2014, Madan Singh vs. Kartik and others, as well as the order dated 06.12.2014 (annexre-14), passed by learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar, in Civil Suit No. 71 of 2014, Kartik vs. Madan Singh & others. A further prayer has been made to allow the temporary injunction application of the petitioner (annexure-11) and restrain the plaintiff/respondent no.1 & his agents to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner in the suit property during the pendency of the civil suit no. 71 of 2014.

(2.) Plaintiff (respondent no.1 herein) filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and cancellation of sale-deed against the defendant no. 1 (petitioner herein) and other defendants, who have been arrayed as proforma respondents in this writ petition. None has turned up for proforma respondents, despite service of notices upon them. An application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. was also filed by the plaintiff before the trial court, in which an order directing status quo was passed by learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Rudrapur on 06.12.2014. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner/defendant no. 1 filed Misc. Civil Appeal, in which the order passed by the trial court was affirmed and the Misc. Civil Appeal was dismissed vide order dated 11.09.2015 by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar. Still aggrieved against the same, present writ petition has been filed on behalf of the defendant no.1-petitiner.

(3.) Learned Trial Court, in para 7 of the judgment, has observed that defendants have no prima facie case. Mutation proceedings are pending before the authority concerned and, therefore, learned Trial Court did not think it proper to grant an ad-interim injunction order in favour of the defendant (petitioner herein) in his counter claim.