IDOL OF RAVIDAS MANDIR Vs. NARESH KUMAR CHABBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioners/plaintiffs have assailed the order passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Una, District Una, H.P. in Civil Miscellaneous Application RBT No. 280-14-2010, titled as The Idol of Sh. Ravidass Mandir, Santokhgarh Vs. Sh. Naresh Kumar and others, dated 13.06.2018, vide which application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the petitioners/plaintiffs was dismissed by the learned Court below, as well as against the judgment passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge-II, Una, H.P. in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 28/2018, titled as The Idol of Shri Ravidas Mandir Santokhgarh and others Vs. Naresh Kumar and others, dated 29.03.2018, vide which, an appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Una, District Una, H.P. stood dismissed by the learned Appellate Court.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that petitioners/ plaintiffs have filed a suit i.e. Civil Suit No. 367/14/10 for possession by way of demolition of structure as per site plan qua the suit land situated in village Santokhgarh, Tehsil and District Una, H.P. as well as for permanent injunction as a consequential relief, restraining the defendants to raise any further structure upon the suit land or, alienate the suit land. An alternative prayer is also made in the suit for setting aside the alienation, if any, done by the defendants. Alongwith the suit, an application stood filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for temporary injunction against defendants during the pendency of the suit.

(3.) The application stood dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 13.06.2018 by interalia holding that the applicants/plaintiffs had failed to make out a prima facie case alongwith balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury caused was also not proved by the applicants.