LAWS(ALL)-1989-12-79

NASEEM Vs. ABDUL RASHEED

Decided On December 07, 1989
NASEEM Appellant
V/S
ABDUL RASHEED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision arising out of the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra Sri S. P. Singh Solanki on 5-9-85 in revision No. 388 of 1984-85 of district Agra, preferred against the Judgement and order of the S.D.O. Agra, passed on 16-2-85 in suit no. 19 of 84-85 Abdul Rasheed and others Vs. Naseem and others under Sec. 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.

(2.) The brief facts of the matter in dispute are that during the trial of suit under Sec. 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act brought by opposite - party Abdul Rasheed Khan seeking declaration of his exclusive tenancy rights which was opposed by the revisionist on the ground of joint tenancy, an application was moved by the plaintiff - opposite party in the trial court on 28-8- 84 with the request to grant order of injunction against the defendants restraining them from alienating or altering the nature of the land in dispute and also from transferring the rights and title in the land in question in favour of any other person during - the pendency of the trial of the suit because of the apprehension that building construction might be raised over the land in dispute by the other party or by the third party in whose favour the land in question was to be transferred. The trial court under his order dated 16-2-85 granted the injunction sought restraining the parties from altering the nature of the land and from transferring it in favour of any third party. The defendants feeling aggrieved went before the Commissioner in revision No. 388 of 84-85 Naseem and others Vs. Abdul Rasheed and others of district Agra in Disposal of which the Additional Commissioner has passed the impugned order on 5-9-85 dismissing the revision holding it to be not maintainable being preferred against an interlocutory order. Now feeling aggrieved the defendants have come to this court in second revision.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and have gone through the record. None appeared for the opposite-party.