JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner/defendant No. 17 (wrongly typed as defendant No. 3 in memorandum W.P.), is challenging the validity of the impugned order dated 15-9-10 passed by learned VI Additional District Judge, Rewa in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 24/2010 whereby temporary injunction application of plaintiff dated 7-8-2006 which has been rejected by the learned trial Court, has been allowed by issuing temporary injunction against the petitioner/defendant No. 17.

(2.) In brief, the case of plaintiff is that he has filed a suit for declaration of Bhumiswami right and injunction against the defendant Nos. 1 to 16 in respect of certain agricultural land the description whereof is mentioned in the plaint. An application for issuance of temporary injunction was also filed by him against these defendants. The State of M. P. and Tehsildar, Rewa have been arrayed as defendants No. 1 and 2 respectively. The application for issuance of temporary injunction against all these defendants 1 to 16 which was allowed on 4-2-2003 by learned trial Court and the order was confirmed in Misc. Appeal No. 75/2004 dated 18-4-2006. The order of learned Appellate Court was never challenged by any of the defendants including the State of M. P./defendant No. 1.

(3.) Later on, the present defendant/petitioner was arrayed as defendant No. 17 because on account of subsequent events which took place, as the land in question was leased out to the present petitioner by the State of Madhya Pradesh hence, the plaintiff again filed an application for issuance of temporary injunction against this defendant on 7-8-2006 after impleading him as party (defendant No. 17). In the application, it has been stated that plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and is in possession. It has also been stated in the application that earlier the plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction against the defendant Nos. 1 to 16 and learned trial Court allowed that application which was affirmed by learned First Appellate Court. On account of leasing out the property in question by State of M. P. to the present newly added defendant / petitioner, fresh application has been filed in which it has been stated that plaintiff is having prima facie case since he is Bhumiswami having possession on the suit property and in case, he is dispossessed, he will have to face unreparable loss and balance of convenience also lies in his favour. This application of plaintiffs was opposed by petitioner/defendant No. 17 by filing a reply.