RAM NARAIN Vs. JAGANNATH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been moved to challenge the order dated 12.6.2003 attached as Annexure P -l passed by the learned trial Court and the order dated 1.5.2006 attached as Annexure P -2, passed by the learned lower Appellate Court on an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C. moved by the petitioner and also order passed on application made by respondent No. 9 in counter claim filed to the suit by the petitioner seeking mandatory injunction.

(2.) THE plaintiff petitioner had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming that the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant was fake transaction and was not binding on the rights of the plaintiff and also claimed permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the peaceful possession. Along with the said suit an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C. was also moved by the petitioner.

(3.) THE learned Courts below have also recorded a finding that mere agreement to sell did not give any right in the property as was Claimed by the petitioner. In view of the finding recorded, the learned Courts below came to the conclusion that no prima facie case was made out in favour of the petitioner to claim injunction against the defendants. The Court also came to the conclusion that the balance of convenience was not in favour of the petitioner but in favour of defendant No. 9. The application moved by the petitioner was, thus, rejected by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned lower appellate Court in appeal. Defendant No. 9 contested the suit and also filed a counter claim claiming mandatory in -junction for restoration of possession illegally taken from him.