VIMLESH SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE MUZAFFARNGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN view of the finding recorded by the Appellate Court in the impugned order that the petitioners who were the third parties have failed to prove their possession over the land in question, I find no illegality in the impugned order. It may be noted that a suit for injunction was filed by Nakli and others against Satpal Singh. IN that suit an ad interim injunction order was passed in favour of the plaintiffs. The said order was challenged by the petitioners who were admittedly not defendants in the said suit on the ground that their interest is adversely affected by the injunction order. The permission to file the appeal was granted but the appeal has been dismissed ultimately by the impugned order on the finding that the present petitioners could not place any document to show that they were in possession of the property in question.

(2.) SHRI P.K.Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 3 brought to the notice of the Court that the present petitioners have already filed a suit for injunction being Suit No. 1249 of 2009 wherein till date no interim injunction order has been passed in their favour. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the appellate Court does not call for any interference. The petition is dismissed. The petitioners may apply for their impleadment as defendants in the suit and the Court shall dispose of the said application expeditiously preferably within a period of one month in accordance with law. If the petitioners are impleaded, it goes without saying that they will have a right to file the objections for grant of ad interim injunction.