DINESH KUKRETI Vs. RAJMAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dtd. 19/5/2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, whereby the application filed by the respondent under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed, restraining the petitioner from interfering in the peaceful possession of the respondent over the suit land, as well as the order dtd. 19/10/2023 passed by the learned Third Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the Case are that the respondent instituted Civil Suit No. 54 of 2021 before the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khatima, seeking permanent injunction in respect of land bearing Khata No. 53, Khasra No. 355/4, admeasuring 0.253 hectare, situated in Village Jhankaiya, Tehsil Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, claiming himself to be the recorded tenure holder and in possession thereof. Along with the suit, the respondent filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC alleging interference by the present petitioner in his peaceful possession. The petitioner contested the said application by filing objection, denying the respondent's exclusive ownership and possession and raising objections regarding demarcation of the land. Upon receipt of objection and hearing both the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), vide order dtd. 19/5/2022, allowed the injunction application in favour of the respondent. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal by filing Misc. Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2022, which too was dismissed by the learned appellate court on 19/10/2023. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking supervisory jurisdiction.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the courts below have passed the impugned orders mechanically and without proper application of judicial mind. It is contended that the respondent is not the exclusive owner of the land in question and has failed to place any document of family partition on record, whereas the Khatauni itself reflects joint ownership. It is further submitted that the revenue map shows only one Khasra number, i.e., 355, and the same is not demarcated into sub-numbers such as 355/1, 355/2, 355/3 and 355/4. Therefore, according to the petitioner, it is not possible to ascertain the exact location of Khasra No. 355/4, and in the absence of proper demarcation, no injunction could have been granted.