NAURATA RAM Vs. RULDU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the learned courts below vide which the application moved by the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed.

(2.) THE petitioner claimed to be the owner of the property in dispute on the basis of sale-deed dated 23.11.1908 and on the basis of entries in rapat roznamcha dated 21.6.1994. The learned courts below have come to a prima facie conclusion that the petitioner has failed to prove the sale-deed dated 23.11.1908. In coming to this conclusion, the learned courts below have been pleased to observe that the boundaries given in the sale-deed and in the suit did not tally. The learned courts below also took note of the fact that in the earlier litigation the plaintiff-petitioner was not held to be in possession and an injunction was granted against the petitioner from interfering in the possession of the defendant therein. The appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed. It has been stated at the bar that the revision against the said order also stands dismissed by this Court. On the basis of the evidence and documents brought on record, the learned courts below have prima facie come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not in possession of the property in dispute and thereby rejected his application moved under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. It may be noticed that the plaintiff failed to give complete particulars in the suit filed by him for seeking injunction on the basis of ownership and possession.

(3.) I have considered the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and find no force in the same. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner does not in any way lays down that the person who enters possession during the pendency of the suit is also entitled to injunction even though he fails to prove prima facie case with regard to ownership and possession. In order to succeed qua the claim of injunction the party is to prove the possession on the date of filing of suit. The learned courts below, in view of the previous judgment rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to prove his prima facie possession. The petitioner has neither been able to prove his possession nor ownership and therefore, the learned courts below were right in dismissing the application by observing that the petitioner had no prima facie case and, therefore, was not entitled to injunction. The findings recorded by the learned courts below do not suffer from any jurisdictional error which may call for interference by this court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. However, nothing observed above shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Keeping in view that the suit filed by the plaintiff petitioner is pending since the year 1994, the learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the same expeditiously preferably within one year from the receipt of the certified copy of the order. Petition dismissed.