FAKIR CHAND Vs. NAGAR PALIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The appellant-plaintiff feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the trial court rejecting an application seeking an ad interim injunction in terms of the decree sought for has now come up in appeal before this Court seeking redress praying for the reversal of the impugned order and the grant of the interim injunction, as prayed for.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have carefully perused the record.

(3.) THE trial court after considering the affidavits exchanged between the parties and the evidence brought on the record up to that stage, came to the conclusion that since the plaintiff could have approached the Board of Revenue for the relief against the order passed by the revising authority, the Collector directing his dispossession from the property in dispute, there could be no justifiable ground for granting the temporary injunction in view of the provisions contained in Section 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act. It was held that the plaintiff had not claimed any relief in respect of his title as envisaged under Section 122B (4D) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950 and in view of that matter also, there could be no justification for nullifying the order passed by the competent authority, the Collector while exercising the exclusive jurisdiction vested in him under the provisions of Section 122B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Apart from the aforesaid grounds, the trial court further found that the plaintiff could not be held to have been successful in establishing a case where injunction in terms of the final relief claimed in the suit deserved to be gra 6.