VIRENDRA KUMAR Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KANNAUJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri K. Shailendra, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri S. Mishra, learned counsel for respondents No.2 & 3.

(2.) PETITIONER is plaintiff in O.S. No.307 of 2008, Virendra Kumar Vs. Prem Shanker and 11 others. Relief claimed in the plaint is for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction seeking to restrain the defendants No.1 to 10 from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the land in dispute comprised in Plot No.623, area half acre and from making construction thereupon. Along with the plaint, application for temporary injunction was also filed. Trial Court/ Civil disposed of the temporary injunction application of the plaintiff and directed both the parties to maintain status quo over the land in dispute till the disposal of the suit. Against the said order, respondent No.2 and 3, Sanjiv Kumar and Vivek Kumar filed Misc. Civil Appeal No.27 of 2011. A.D.J., Court No.1, Kannauj allowed the appeal through order dated 02.04.2013, set aside the order of the trial court dated 14.09.2011 and rejected the temporary injunction application of the plaintiff. The order of the lower appellate court has been challenged through this writ petition.

(3.) NO suit for cancellation of the sale deeds has been filed by the plaintiff. Even in the suit giving rise to the instant writ petition no prayer either for cancellation of the sale deeds or for partition has been made. Lower appellate court also mentioned that in the year 1983, plaintiff filed O.S. No.482 of 1983 for injunction against several defendants of the suit giving rise to the instant writ petition including defendants No.5 & 6/ respondents No.2 & 3 in this writ petition. In the earlier suit they were defendants No.1 & 2. The said suit was dismissed on 09.12.1983 in default and restoration application was also dismissed on 27.04.2000 but nothing was stated about the said suit in the suit in question. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that after filing of the earlier suit of 1983, defendants of the same stopped interfering in the possession of the plaintiff, hence the said suit was abandoned. This argument cannot be accepted. If compromise had taken place, it should have been filed in the said suit.