PREMALATA SAMAL MOHAPATRA Vs. BASANTA MANJARI PATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) THE plaintiff in Title Suit No. 303 of 1999 of the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bhubaneswar has preferred this revision as against the refusal of the prayer for temporary injunction by the Courts below in Misc. Case No. 358 of 1999 and Misc. Appeal no. 6/20 of 2000. Plaintiffs case is that she is the owner of that property and in possession of the same and the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the trespassers and they create disturbance in her peaceful possession. Defendants have contested the suit and the misc. case. They have advanced the claims of title and possession on the basis of registered sale deed said to have been executed in their favour by the bona fide purchasers of the suit property from the parents of the plaintiff. The Courts below have considered that aspect while considering the application for temporary injunction. Learned Civil Judge recorded that the documents filed by the defendants/opposite party relating to mutation of the said land in favour of the defendant No. 1. Payment of rent by them in the recent past and the registered sale deeds are prima facie acceptable in proof of factum of possession in favour of the defendants. Apart from that, from the documents and contention of the parties the Courts below concurrently hold that defendant is in possession of the property and order of interim injunction will amount to order of eviction. Accordingly, both the Courts below did not find it to be a fit case for grant of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff.

(3.) NORMALLY such a conduct is not expected from a Court adjudicating a dispute or disposing of an interim application. On perusal of the LCR this Court finds that petitioner filed unauthenticate xerox copies of some documents whereas Opposite party filed original or authenticated copies of documents which they relied on. Hence, the Courts below are not to be blamed for not accepting such unauthenticated copies of documents, when correctness and authenticity of that being not admitted by the Opposite party. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner and the criticism to the conduct of the Courts below is not well -founded. This Court thus does not find existence of perversity, as complained by the petitioner.