BAJRANGA Vs. RAM PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have called in question the legality, validity and correctness of the order passed by the trial Court on 24.2.2011wherein the trial Court passed the order in an application preferred under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. in favour of the plaintiff. The trial Court directed that in Survey No. 334 the defendants will not interfere and will not cause any interference by any other party. This order was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioners by preferring an appeal under order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C., which was decided by the Appellate Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 9/11 dated 6.9.2011.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner criticized the order of the trial Court on the ground that as per Annexure P-10 it is clear that land of the plaintiff was limited but the trial Court on the basis of assumption granted interim order beyond the entitlement of the plaintiff. It is further argued that the petitioners' land is adjacent to the said survey number and since the land more than the entitlement of the plaintiff is secured by way of interim order, the plaintiff is enjoying undue benefits. The learned counsel further submits that this ground raised in the appeal memo was not considered in detail by the Appellate Court. He lastly placed reliance on the order dated 17.1.2012 passed by the Additional Collector, Sheopur, copy of which is filed today and provided to the other side.

(3.) THIS is settled in law that in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution, new pleadings and new material cannot be examined. On the basis of material on record, it is clear that the plaintiff explicitly pleaded his case and the trial Court prima facie found the case in his favour. The present petitioners' defence was very sketchy and devoid of proper details and descriptions.