GOVIND SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Vs. RAMRATAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order passed by the Fourth Additional District judge, Vidisha, in MCA No. 32/15 on 17.1.17 affirming the order passed by the Fourth Civil Judge, Class II, Vidisha, in Civil Suit No. 96-A/2014 rejecting the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff.

(2.) It is plaintiff/petitioner's contention that though trial Court in para 10 of its impugned order has categorically mentioned that petitioner had filed copy of the plaint as was registered as Case No. 149-A/1976 (Ramratan Vs. Deewan Singh), copy of the written statement, copy of compromise application and copy of the document showing verification of compromise, yet these documents, which were on record before the trial Court, were not taken into consideration while deciding the application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC. His further grievance is that first appellate Court was so blind folded that it not only refused to take cognizance of the documents on record, but in para 12 of the impugned order it has also mentioned that plaintiff had not filed any such document which demonstrates that such land was ever in the name of the plaintiff or his forefathers. Thereafter, in para 13 first appellate Court has recorded a finding that plaintiff should have filed either affidavit of Ramratan so to prove the High Court of Madhya Pradesh compromise or should have filed copy of the order whereby the said compromise was verified/accepted. Such findings of the first appellate Court are prima facie perverse on the face of it.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that by filing an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code plaintiff had only sought a relief that defendant No. 8 (respondent No. 7 in this petition) be restrained from getting the mutation of the suit property in his name. He submits that now this relief has been rendered infructuous inasmuch respondent No. 7/defendant has not only obtained mutation, but also this mutation has been confirmed upto the Board of Revenue. He further submits that he is willing to furnish an undertaking not to alienate the suit property during the pendency of the suit and that will serve the purpose and this petition can be disposed of with a direction to the learned trial Court to decide the suit expeditiously within a period of six months. He submits that in a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India the Court should not go into the legality or otherwise of the order, especially when no effective relief can be granted now once the mutation has already been carried out in favour of the defendant No. 8.