SHAILENDRA SINGH BISHT Vs. SANJAY BHANDARI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.02.2016, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Camp at Srinagar, District Pauri Garhwal in Civil Suit No. 14 of 2015, Shailendra Singh Bisht vs. Sanjay Bhandari and another, whereby the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. filed by the petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 21.07.2016, passed by the learned District Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Misc. Appeal No. 15 of 2016, Shailendra Singh Bisht vs. Sanjay Bhandari and another, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order dated 23.02.2016 has been confirmed. Petitioner has also prayed that the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. may be allowed and the respondents may be restrained from raising any construction over the property in dispute during the pendency of Civil Suit No. 14 of 2015.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the dispute arose on 08.11.2015 when the respondents tried to encroach the land of the petitioner situated in the western side of his building and also tried to dismantle the cemented chambers. According to the petitioner, respondents also tried to close the windows and roshandans by constructing their building adjacent to petitioners building. On 28.11.2015, petitioner filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction and also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 of C.P.C. against the respondents in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srinagar. The said suit was registered as Civil Suit No. 14 of 2015. Vide order dated 28.11.2015, the learned trial Court directed the respondents to maintain status quo over the property in dispute till the next date fixed. On 07.12.2015, the respondents filed their objection to the application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 of C.P.C. The learned trial Court, vide order dated 23.02.2016, rejected the application moved by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 of C.P.C. The aforesaid order of the learned trial Court was challenged by the petitioner before the learned District Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2016. The learned District Judge, Pauri Garhwal, vide order dated 02.03.2016, directed both the parties to maintain status quo over the disputed property till the next date fixed. Thereafter, vide judgment and order dated 21.07.2016, the learned District Judge, Pauri Garhwal dismissed the aforesaid Misc. Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2016 filed by the petitioner and confirmed the order dated 23.02.2016 passed by the learned trial Court. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner purchased the land from different owners and he is in exclusive possession of the land. It is also his contention that respondents, in fact, purchased 15 nali land. He also contended that, in fact, the seller sold 6 muthi of land to the respondents in excess of actual land of which he was the owner.