MATADEEN PRAJAPATI Vs. NOUKHESINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed the present miscellaneous petition being aggrieved by order dated 20/04/2018. By the said impugned order Appellate Court has set aside and reverse the order passed by the trial Court on application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) Plaintiff has filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with 151 of CPC before the trial Court for grant of temporary injunction against the defendants. Learner trial Court has rejected the application of injunction on the ground that land in question has been sold by Santhosh Kumar Rai defendant no.2 to defendant no.4 Mata Deen Prajapati by registered sale-deed dated 02.08.2016. Further, land has also been mutated in the name of Matadin Prajapati. Mauka Punchnama which has been prepared by Patwari khasra no. 6/2 measuring 1.60 hectares is said to be in possession of Matadin. Land has also been mutated in the name of Matadin. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, trial Court has rejected the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) Plaintiff has preferred an appeal against the said order. Appellate Court has set-aside the said order and granted injunction in the favour of plaintiff on the ground that defendant no.1 himself has filed an application before Tehsildar for getting possession over the land. Said application was later on been dismissed for want of prosecution on 12.02.2014. Learned Appellate Court has not taken into consideration the registered sale-deed and the report of Tehsildar.