RAM DIXIT Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE RAE BARELI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mohd. Adil Khan, for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Parmanand Shukla, learned Counsel for the opposite party Nos. 3 to 6.

(2.) THROUGH the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 2.8.2010 passed by the opposite party No.1-District Judge, Raibareli, whereby the order dated 17.3.2010 passed by the opposite party No.2-Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.16, Raibareli, has been affirmed.

(3.) AFTER the institution and during pendency of the aforesaid suit, opposite party Nos. 3 to 6 filed a separate suit for permanent injunction, which was registered as Regular Suit No. 906 of 2009, against the petitioner along with an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying therein for restraining him from interfering with their alleged possession over the same land which is in dispute in R.S.No. 88 of 2009 filed by the petitioner inter-alia on the ground that they had acquired the land in dispute under a registered Will dated 31.12.2008 executed by Smt. Phoolkali in their favour and the petitioner is trying to take forcible possession over the same. Notice was also issued and in reply thereof, the petitioner filed his objections along with the counter affidavit and denied the allegations made in the application. After considering the submissions and perusal of evidence on record, the opposite party No.2-Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 16, Raibareli, vide order dated 17.3.2010, granted injunction, directing the petitioner not to change the nature of the land in suit or to alienate the same and to preserve the property till decision of the suit.