NIRMAL SINGH Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT VILLAGE SAFERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is in second appeal against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below by which his suit for permanent injunction has been dismissed in terms of Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "CPC").

(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction in order to restrain the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession over the land measuring 23 Bighas 4 Biswas on the ground that it has been leased out to him on 12.05.2006 for a period of one year against payment of lease money vide receipt No.51 dated 12.05.2006. In the written statement, it was alleged by the defendant that the plaintiff was not in possession of the land as detailed in head note of the plaint, but he is in possession of 3 Bighas 5 Biswas of land only which was leased out to him for one year against a deposit of Rs. 900/-. It was also alleged that the defendant had never threatened to dispossess the plaintiff who himself is required to vacate the land measuring 3 Bighas 5 Biswas after expiry of the lease period. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed on 25.10.2006. The plaintiff did not lead any evidence in support of his case despite availing several opportunities. Therefore, his evidence was ordered to be closed by the Trial Court and in terms of Order 17 Rule 3 CPC his suit was dismissed vide its judgment and decree dated 30.05.2008. The first appeal filed by the plaintiff/appellant also met with the same fate.

(3.) In this second appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the absence of evidence, learned Trial Court should have dismissed the suit under Order 17 Rule 2 CPC instead of deciding it under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC.