BABAJI PRADHAN Vs. GOVINDA CHANDRA SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS are the petitioners as against the order passed on 15.4.2000 in Misc.Appeal No.89 of 1998 by learned First Addl.District Judge, Cuttack. By the impugned order learned Addl. District Judge set aside the order of temporary injunction granted by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), First Court, Cuttack on 30.7.1998 in Misc.Case No.284 of 1997 (under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C.). The concerned defendants, i.e., defendants Nos.1 and 2 are the opposite parties in this revision.

(2.) THE disputed land is plot No.1307/4 situated in Cuttack township. Litigations with respect to the suit land has a chequered carrier and a detail narration in that respect has been made by the Courts below, thus reiteration of the same is not necessary to dispose of this Civil Revision. In a nut -shell, plaintiffs claim over the disputed suit property is on the basis of an agreement for sale said to have been executed by the defendant No.1 on 15.12.1989. On the other hand defendant No.2 claims title and possession in the basis of a registered sale deed executed in his favour by the defendant No.1 on 4.1.1990 and the symbolical delivery of possession taken in Execution Case No.71 of 1985. While considering the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. learned Civil Judge found that the suit being one for specific performance of the agreement for sale, therefore, possession claimed by the plaintiffs is required to be protected until the dispute relating to enforceability of the agreement for sale is decided in the suit. Learned Addl.District Judge on the other hand accepted prima facie value of the evidence regarding delivery of possession through Court and thereby prima facie proof of possession of the defendants over the case land and the suit being prima faciely appearing to be barred by time, because the suit was instituted in the year 1998, i.e., about nine years after the date of agreement, passed the impugned order vacating the order of temporary injunction.

(3.) WHILE arguing on merit on 4.2.2003 learned counsel for the petitioners suggested to dispose of the Civil Revision by maintaining the order of status quo with a direction to the trial Court for disposal of the suit expeditiously. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant No.2/opp. party though agreed for early disposal of the suit but did not agree for continuance of the order of status quo. He argued that because of the interim order he has lost possession of one room from the suit premises and that be restored to him.