MAHIPAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & OTHERS

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 04.02.2017, passed by Addl. District Judge, Kotdwar (Garhwal) in misc. civil appeal no. 37 of 2016, Mahipat Singh vs State of Uttarakhand and others, and order dated 03.09.2016, passed by Civil Judge (S.D.), Kotdwar, Garhwal, in temporary injunction application (Paper no. 6C/2) under Order 39 Rules 1&2 CPC of the petitioner / plaintiff in O.S. no. 43/2015, Mahipat Singh vs State of Uttarakhand and others.

(2.) Plaintiff-Petitioner filed a civil suit in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Kotdwar, for a relief of permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of suit property, which has been detailed and specified at the foot of the plaint, along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1&2 CPC. Application under Order 39 Rules 1&2 CPC was dismissed by the trial court, vide order dated 03.09.2016. Aggrieved against the same, plaintiff-petitioner filed a misc. civil appeal which too was dismissed, vide order dated 04.02.2017. Hence, present writ petition.

(3.) While disposing of temporary injunction application and objections thereon, the trial court held that none of the ingredients, which are necessary for success of temporary injunction application, namely, prima facie case, irreparable loss and balance of convenience, are made out in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner. The plaintiff, before the trial court, made an attempt to justify his possession over the property in suit on the basis of boundaries specified in the sale deed. Learned trial court has appropriately dealt with said issue and has also mentioned the boundaries as mentioned in the sale deed as well as in the plaint, in internal page 5 of the judgment. The trial court has given a categorical finding that the plaintiff has filed this suit to grab the land of the Government, under the guise of boundaries given in the sale deed, in connivance with others. Learned trial court has clearly given finding as to how the property, as claimed by the plaintiff, does not belong to him and he is not in possession thereof. It is not necessary to reproduce the entire contents of the judgment rendered by learned trial court. When prima facie case was not made out, the other ingredients namely, irreparable loss and balance of convenience have rightly been decided by the trial court against the plaintiff-petitioner.