AYAZ AHMAD Vs. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), KADIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Skand Bajpai, Advocate holding brief of Shri Pradeep Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.6.

(2.) This petition has been filed for setting-aside the order dtd. 20/9/2023 passed in Original Suit No.723 of 2023 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kadipur, District- Sultanpur. A further prayer has been made for direction not to demolish the housing abode described in the foot of plaint and they may not dislodge the peaceful possession and occupation of petitioners over the land in question described in the foot of plaint and for a direction for deciding the application for interim injunction on merits on the next date fixed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the basis of spot inspection on 10/9/2023, the petitioners were directed to remove the alleged encroachment made by the petitioners on 10x10 part of Gata No.20/0.038 hec., which is recorded as Naveen Parti and encroached by the petitioners which has been selected for R.R.C. Center. It has further been observed that in the notice, in case the petitioners do not violate the direction issued by the authorities, the temporary encroachment would be removed immediately. Being aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioners, after a notice under Sec. 82 of the C.P.C., filed a suit for permanent injunction before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kadipur, District- Sultanpur alongwith an application for interim injunction. The application for interim injunction has not been considered merely on the ground that there is a caveat by a private person and without notice to him the same can not be heard, whereas there was no occasion for a private person to file a caveat in regard to the government land and caveat has been filed by the husband of the Gram Pradhan due to political reason so that the petitioners may not get any indulgence from the trial court. The learned trial court, without considering the provisions of Order-39, Rule-3 C.P.C. that on account of urgency in the matter, there is no requirement of issuance of notice to the opposite parties, passed the impugned order, therefore, the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court and submit that the order passed by the trial court may be set-aside and the injunction may be granted.