SURJIT SINGH Vs. JANAK RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Sanjeev Suri, learned counsel for the respondent states that he does not intend to file reply to the petition and has no objection in case petition is heard and decided on the basis of material available on record.

(2.) Question which needs to be determined and decided by this Court in the instant proceedings is whether the Court below while disposing of the application under Order 39 Rule 7 read with Sec. 75, 94 & 151 CPC could proceed to vacate the ex-parte ad interim injunction already granted in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of material adduced before it at the time of filing civil suit?

(3.) For having birds eye view, necessary facts as emerge from the record are that the plaintiff (petitioner herein) filed a civil suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant (respondent herein) for restraining him from raising any construction over the suit land as described in head note of the plaint. Civil suit referred herein above came to be filed on the averments that the suit land is jointly owned and possessed by co-owners including parties to the suit and the same has not been partitioned by metes and bounds and, as such, the defendant cannot be allowed to raise construction on specific and valuable portion of suit land. Alongwith the aforesaid suit, plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC (Annexure P-1). Learned Civil Judge, Court No.II, Una vide order dtd. 20/3/2017 after having perused the material made available on record by the plaintiff, directed the parties to maintain status quo qua nature and construction over suit land till further orders. Vide aforesaid order, Court also directed that compliance of order 39 Rule 3 CPC be made forthwith and thereafter show cause notice be issued to the respondent for 3/4/2017.