SUBAL KUMAR Vs. PURNA CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Civil Revisions filed by defendant 1 arise out of a common order in a suit. Accordingly, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) . Suit is for partition in which plaintiffs prayed for repurchasing the land purchased by defendant 1. In the suit, plaintiffs filed an application for temporary injunction against defendant 1. Ex parte ad-interim order of injunction was made by the trial court. Defendant 1 appeared and filed written statement disputing the claims of the plaintiffs. Objection to the application for temporary injunction was also raised by him. He filed an application for appointing a person to inspect the disputed land. During continuance of the order of injunction, plaintiffs filed an application for punishing defendant No. 1 for violating the order of injunction which is pending consideration. Plaintiffs filed an application for a direction of the trial court to the police to implement the order of injunction. Trial court rejected the application of defendant 1 and allowed the application of the plaintiffs in the impugned order. Hence these two Civil Revisions have been filed by defendant 1.

(3.) When these revisions came up for admission, I disposed of them directing the trial court to appoint a person for inspection of the disputed land. I also set aside the order of the trial court directing the officer-in-charge, Baliapal P.S. to render assistance to the plaintiffs for implementation of the order of injunction. Since I disposed of both the revisions without hearing the opposite parties, I gave liberty to the opposite parties to move this Court for recalling the order passed by me in case they are prejudiced. Accordingly, application has been filed by the opposite parties for recalling the order. While considering the question of recalling the order, both the parties agree that the two Civil Revisions can be heard finally on merits.