RAJENDRA PD. YADAV Vs. RANJIT YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed "against the order dated 25.02.2019 passed by the A.D.J. II, Munger passed in Misc. Appeal No. 18/2016 whereby the learned Court below has dismissed the Miscellaneous case filed by the petitioners under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of C.P.C. affirming the order of the learned sub-Judge Ist, Munger dated 19.05.2016 passed on injunction petition filed by the petitioners (Plaintiffs-Appellants) in Title Partition Suit No. 92 of 2014."

(2.) Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants/petitioners submits that the suit was filed for partition of land in which they have 1/6th share. However during the pendency of the suit, defendant/opposite party/respondent 4th set is threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs/appellants/petitioners from the land claimed to have been purchased by them from the defendant/opposite party/respondent 1st set and further sell the same to the third parties. It is submitted that irreparable injury will be caused if the defendant/opposite party/respondent 4th set is not restrained from selling the land which is under the possession of the plaintiffs/appellants/petitioners.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants/petitioners and on consideration of the materials on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. From a perusal of the impugned appellate order dated 25.02.2019, it transpires that the learned Court has considered the rival submissions of the parties in considerable detail. The submission of the respondents has been taken note of that both parties had been selling portions of the land according to their convenience and need. From the plaint, the complete details of the ancestral land are not ascertainable nor the extent of the land which has been sold by the parties nor what part remained after such sale. The learned appellate court has expressed that such particulars can only be ascertained after considering the evidence and if any portion of the land under possession of the plaintiffs/appellants/petitioners is found to have been sold, the same would be returned to them and as such no irreparable injury is likely to be caused. As such, the balance of convenience has also not been shown in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants/petitioners who have not sought for any report from the Pleader Commissioner.