SUNIL KUMAR Vs. RAJEEV KUMAR & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is maintained by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 28.6.2016, passed by the learned Additional District JudgeIII, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., in RBT Civil Misc. Appeal No.2-P/XIV/2016, whereby the order dated 22.3.2016, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palampur in CMA No.56/2016, has been set aside. A prayer has been made to set aside the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge-III, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P.

(2.) Briefly stating the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the plaintiff/petitioner (hereinafter to be referred as "the petitioner")referred to be has filed a suit for grant of decree of permanent prohibitory injunction in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents, their agents, representatives labourers, contractors etc. to do away with digging and laying plinth, raise construction, erecting pillars, shuttering putting slab and occupying best and valuable portion of the land comprised in Khata No.24, Khatauni No.35, Khasra No.1864, total land measuring 00-10-46 hectares, situated at Mohal & Mauza Ghuggar, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. which land is owned and possessed by the plaintiff, defendants alongwith other shareholders and recorded as such in the jamabandi for the year 2012-13 and in the alternative, suit for mandatory injunction, if in case, the defendants succeed in raising construction on the suit land.

(3.) The petitioner/plaintiff (hereinafter to be called as "the petitioner") had filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of ad-interim injunction in his favour in the Court of Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Palampur vide Civil Suit No.60 of 2016, which was registered as CMA No.56 of 2016. It has been averred that the learned trial Court after hearing the counsel for the petitioner, passed interim order restraining the respondents from changing the nature of the suit land till further orders. It has been averred that the learned trial Court after hearing the parties, dismissed the application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC filed by the respondent No.1 being devoid of any merit and the application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 was allowed and respondent No.1 was directed to maintain status quo qua the nature of the suit land till the pendency of the case or till the land is not partitioned by the metes and bounds and respondents No.2 to 4 were also restrained from interfering in any manner and raising any construction over the suit land during the pendency of the suit.