RAM SAWAR Vs. JOGENDRA & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is by the plaintiff. In this appeal he has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Gorakhpur dated 31st May, 2016 dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff, being Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2010, Ram Sawar Vs. Yogendra and others, and affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 24, Gorakhpur in Original Suit No. 732 of 1995, Ram Sawar Vs. Yogendra and others, dated 26th Feb., 2010, whereby the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction has been dismissed on the ground that the second suit was barred under the provisions of Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The essential facts are that the plaintiff instituted a suit, being Original Suit No. 732 of 1995, Ram Sawar Vs. Yogendra and others, for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering in his possession. The case of the plaintiff was that the disputed plot, being Araji No. 311 Kha area 25 desimal (for short, the 'suit property'), was bhumidhari land of one Sri Ram Vriksha, son of Raghunandan, who transferred the said property in favour of the plaintiff vide a registered sale-deed dated 15th Nov., 1989. Thus, the plaintiff is owner and in possession of the said property. Adjacent to the said land, the plaintiff's house exists and he uses the suit property as appurtenant land (Sehan). The plaintiff uses the suit property for tethering his cattle and other useful purposes. According to the plaintiff, the defendants had no concern with the suit property but without any right they are causing interference in the possession of the plaintiff.

(3.) The defendants contested the said suit and filed their written statement. Their stand was that the plaintiff has filed the suit by concealment of several facts. The defendants have denied the plaintiff's title over the suit property. They have claimed their possession over it. In addition to above, they also took a plea that previously, the plaintiff instituted another suit, being Civil Suit No. 368 of 1995, wherein he had got an ex parte interim injunction. However, the said suit has been dismissed on 01st Aug., 1998 for non-prosecution in presence of the defendants. It was further averred that without taking any step to get the said suit restored and when the interim injunction passed in the said suit stood discharged after dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff has instituted the present suit concealing the aforesaid facts and again has succeeded in obtaining an ex parte injunction.