SUNIL KUMAR Vs. RAJKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against the order passed by learned trial Court on 23/8/2017 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 and the subsequent order dtd. 11/5/2018 passed by learned trial Court under Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C. The order passed by Appellate Court in Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) has also been challenged in this petition.

(2.) Facts of the case, in brief, are that respondent nos. 1 to 4 filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner and some other persons with the contention that they have constructed five shops over the family property, which they inherited from Sri Ratan Lal (father-in-law of respondent no. 1 and grand-father of respondent nos. 2 to 4).

(3.) On 31/5/2017, learned trial Court issued notice on the suit as well as the temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiffs. Upon service of notice, petitioner appeared through counsel on 23/8/2017 and instead of seeking time for filing objection to the temporary injunction application, he moved an application seeking adjournment. Learned trial Court, therefore, granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs (respondent nos. 1 to 4 herein) vide order dtd. 23/8/2017. Petitioner, thereafter, moved an application under Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C., which was rejected by learned trial Court vide order dtd. 11/5/2018. Thereafter, petitioner filed a Misc. Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) C.P.C., which too has been dismissed by learned IVth Additional District Judge vide judgment and order dtd. 15/12/2018.