GYAN KISHORE Vs. THAKUR SHREE RANGJI MAHARAJ VIRAJMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Manish Goyal, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants and Sri D.K. Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1. No one has appeared for respondent No. 2 despite service of notice being deemed to be sufficient.

(2.) The appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1(r), C.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 3.2.2011 passed by the Court of first instance in Original suit No. 420 of 2009 rejecting the plaintiff-appellants application for interim injunction paper No. 7-Ga.

(3.) It appears that respondent No. 2 Thakur Shree Govind Dev Ji Maharaj Virajman Mandir is the owner of the property in question i.e. khasara No. 707 Mauja Vrindavan Bangar, Tehsil - Chatta, District - Mathura. The plaintiffs alleges that about 300 sq. yard forming part of the aforesaid land was leased out by respondent No. 2 in favour of their grandfather vide perpetual lease deed dated 28.12.1961 and some part was leased out in favour of respondent No. 1 Thakur Shree Rangji Maharaj Virajman Rang Mandir Vrindavan, Tehsil and District Mathura. It is the further case of the plaintiffs appellants that they are doing business of sale of building material from the said land and they would suffer irreparable loss and injuries if their right to occupy the land is not protected. On the other hand, respondent No. 1 set up defence though the entire property belongs to respondent No. 2 but the same has been leased out as a whole in favour of respondent No. 1 vide lease deed dated 13.1.1859 (paper No. 46/47-Ga) and that the plaintiffs appellants have no concern with it. No part of khasara No. 707 was ever leased out in favour of plaintiffs grandfather Heera Lal as alleged by the plaintiffs appellants. The Court below on consideration of the respective cases of the parties vide impugned order rejected the injunction application on the ground that the plaintiffs appellants have not been able to establish any prima facie case and they are not likely to suffer any irreparable loss and injuries in case injunction is not granted.