ALOK KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. BIHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners claim to be the owners in possession of agricultural lands of the following description : Fasli 1404, arazi no.714 metre, area 06.200 hectare. The name of the petitioners are duly recorded in the revenue records. The defendants to the suit, who have no right or title to the aforesaid property, forcibly made encroachments upon the disputed land and started erecting constructions. Faced with this an imminent threat of alteration in the nature of land and attempt to take forcible possession by the defendants, the petitioners brought civil proceedings registered as Original Suit No.6 of 2020 (Alok Kmar and another Vs. Bihari and others). Considering the emergent nature of the encroachments and constructions being attempted by the defendants, an application for temporary injunction registered as application no.6-C was also instituted along with the plaint.

(2.) The learned trial court called for the amin report, which was duly submitted. The photographs regarding the constructions being erected by the defendants were also brought in the record before the learned trial court. Notices to all defendants have been issued. Some of the defendants have already been served, but none of the defendants have entered appearance to decide the suit. On the other hand, the defendants continue raising the illegal constructions. The application for temporary injunction was not decided. Consequently, the petitioners moved an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating the imminent of threat of complete dispossession and whole-sale alteration of the nature of the land with the prayer for grant of temporary injunction. The application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected by the learned trial court by the impugned judgment and order dated 14.01.2020.

(3.) I see merit in the submission of Sri Sanjiv Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shailendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned trial court failed to discharge its duties by not deciding the application for temporary injunction in time even though the urgency of the matter was writ large on the face of the record.