DR. PRASHANT MISHRA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This miscellaneous appeal has been filed under Order XLIII. Rule l(r) of Civil Procedure Code against order dated 10.05.2012 passed in Civil suit No. 7-A/12 by learned 111 Additional District Judge. Jabalpur whereby application filed under Order XXXIX. Rule 1 and 2 of CPC has been rejected on the ground that no prima facie case is made out in favour of plaintiff/appellant.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn attention towards the fact that plaintiff/appellant has been appointed as Sarvarahkar and owner of land Khasra No. 160 of village Katangi, who are defendant No. 2 and 3 by registered deed dated 17 07.08. When application for mutation was filed by the appellant before the Sub Divisional Officer Patan. Dist. Jabalpur on 26.09.11, the S.D.O. vide order dated 29.11.11 rejected the application by mentioning the fact that the disputed land belongs to the temple of Sankarji Maharaj and name of he Collector has been entered as Manager.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn attention towards the khasra entry and sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff by Devkumar and Kiran through power of attorney holder on 26.08.2008 which shows that the temple and land has entered in the name of Dev Kumar and others who have been shown as bhoomiswami of the land therefore, there was no question of new appointment of Sarvarahkar. Therefore, learned Trial Court is not justified in rejecting the application tiled under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 of CPC Since, the appellant/plaintiff is in possession of the suit land on the basis of registered deed, therefore, the appeal is allowed.