LAXMI Vs. RAJENDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 30.8.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Deoria in Misc. Appeal No. 27 of 1999, affirming the order dated 3.4.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge. Junior Division. Deoria in Original Suit No. 2369 of 1997, has since been challenged by Shri A. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the orders of both the Courts below cannot be sustained since in the present case, both the parties had been claiming title and possession of the properly. According to him, when both the parties claim title and possession in respect of the same property, appropriate order would be an order of stalus quo. He contends that unless the order of status quo is granted, the plaintiff apprehends that his house would be demolished. He then contends that if any order of status quo is granted, the same would not prejudice the defendant. There is no ground for the defendant being aggrieved if an order of status quo is passed. According to him if the defendant is in possession, the order of status quo will not prejudice him, therefore, the defendant cannot be said to be aggrieved. On these grounds he challenges the aforesaid two orders.

(2.) Mr. Rajiv Mishra, learned counsel for respondents on the other hand contends that the question of injunction is dependent on the establishment of prima facie case. Unless the plaintiff is able to establish his prima facie case, he cannot be said to be entitled to an injunction. The question of balance of convenience and inconvenience or the question of irreparable loss and injury would arise only when a prima facie case is made out. Supporting the two orders, he had pointed out that both the Courts below had found that the defendant has been able to make out a prima facie case that the title lies with them. At the same time both the Courts found that the plaintiff has not been able to establish a prima facie case either with regard to the title or with regard to possession. On the other hand it is also found that the balance of convenience or inconvenience is not in favour of the plaintiff. It is found that, according to his own plaint, his house is situated on the south of the property in dispute. It is also found that there are other land adjacent to the property on which the plaintiffs house is situated. Therefore, according to him there is no infirmity in the said two orders and as such the writ petition is to be dismissed.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.