SITA RAM & ANR Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the impugned order, dated 10.11.2016, in CMA No.12/14 of 2016, passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, affirming the order, dated 2.7.2016, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bilaspur, in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.39/6 of 2016, in Civil Suit No.23/1 of 2016, titled Sita Ram and anr. vs. Madan Lal, with a prayer to set aside the same and allow the application preferred by the petitioners/applicants under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that petitioners/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiffs) have maintained a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondent/defendant (hereinafter referred to as 'defendant') from causing any interference in the suit land comprising Khasra No.1164/1, measuring 46 sqmts. situated in Up Muhal, Bilaspur (Lakhanpur) Pargana and Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur and dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land, otherwise then in due course of law i.e. by putting any material of construction etc. in the suit land and raising construction during the pendency of suit.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has argued that there is no reason to reject the application of the applicants/plaintiffs, as the respondent/defendant has no right to take forcible possession of the suit land except by legal process i.e. till the time decree is executed. The plaintiffs rights are required to be protected from the respondent, therefore, the present petition is required to be allowed. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has vehemently argued that there is nothing on record to suggest that the plaintiffs/petitioners are taking possession over the suit land without due process of law and the execution petition is pending adjudication, the plaintiffs/petitioners could have raised their claim, if any, in execution petition before the competent Court of law and the suit as well as application is misconceived. He has further argued that the order of the learned Courts below dismissing the application is as per law.