KUL BHUSHAN Vs. A.D.J. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has come up to this Court with the prayer for quashing the order dated 2.9.2003 and 17.4.2003 passed under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code and Order 43, Rule 1r Civil Procedure Code respectively and further with the prayer to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from plots No.43, 44, 45 and 46 situate in Industrial Estate, Deoband, district Saharanpur.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that he had filed a suit for prohibitory injunction being suit No.268 of 1995 with the prayer that the respondents defendants be restrained from interfering in the possession of the petitioner over the plots No. 43 to 46 as mentioned above. Putting of such a claim is on account of the fact that the defendant had executed a lease deed of 99 years in favour of the petitioner and upon such lease the petitioner came into possession over the property in question and made construction which are still standing on the plot in question. Along with plaint, the petitioner also filed an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code. Initially the interim order was granted for the parties to maintain status quo but the same was not extended due to lawyer's abstaining from work and ultimately the interim injunction application was rejected on 15.3.1999 against which the petitioner then filed an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1r Civil Procedure Code which was also dismissed by the order dated 2.9.2003.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after filing of the plaint he has also filed his replica in which he has categorically stated that the lease deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff petitioner over the plot in question and said lease deed was also registered . According to the learned counsel for the petitioner this aspect has not been looked into either by the trial court or the appellate court while deciding the interim injunction application.