BHIRGU DAYAL Vs. RAMESH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri V. K. Singh learned counsel for the appellant and Shri V. C. Singh learned counsel for the respondents.. Learned counsels for the parties agree that the appeal may be disposed of at this stage and the application dated 2-11-1989 for temporary injunction need not to be disposed of.

(2.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order dated 31-7-1989, passed by the 1st Addl. District Judge, Ballia rejecting the application moved under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC, by the defendant-appellant. A suit for permanent injunction bearing original suit no. 499 of 1980 was filed by Mahesh Prasad and other plaintiffs-respondents for restraining the defendants- appellant from interfering in the possession of plaintiffs-respondents over Sikmi plots no. 1816 and 973 and also for demolition of the. contractions made by the defendant in plot no. 973. The 3rd Addl. Mnnsif Ballia partly decreed the suit for permanent injunction in respect of plot no. 1015 and dismissed the suit in respect of plot no. 973 by the judgment and decree dated 8-2-1988.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the impugned order, the appellant has preferred this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the aforesaid authority has no application after the amendment or Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC.