FUTUN PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dtd. 7/6/2023 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 08/2017 by the court of learned Additional District Judge-1, Buxar and order dtd. 21/6/2017 passed in Title Suit No. 690/2013 by the learned Sub Judge-1, Dumraon, Buxar whereby and whereunder the learned trial court rejected the prayer of the plaintiff/petitioner for grant of injunction and the same was upheld by the learned first appellate court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court erred on the facts as well as on the law. The learned trial court did not consider the fact that prima facie case lies in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner and it would not cause irreparable loss to him if injunction was not granted. Further, the balance of convenience was also in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner filed Title Suit No.690/2013 for declaration of his title, right and interest and further confirmation of possession over the suit land mentioned in Schedule 3 of the plaint bearing R.S. Khata No. 253, Plot No. 1169, Area 3 decimals, which is part of Old Khat No. 27/1, Old Plot No. 811, Area 37 decimals and recorded in the name of ancestor of the plaintiff. It has also been stated in the plaint that R.S. Survey Khatiyan with respect to R.S. Plot No. 1169, Area 3 decimals has been wrongly prepared in the name of Anabad Sarva Sadharan, whereas the same is the property of the plaintiff. The learned counsel further submits that the first four defendants are authorities, who are respondent nos. 1 to 4 herein and respondent no. 5 has been made defendant no. 5 on his intervener petition as the respondent no. 5 has been eager to get the disputed land declared as public alley. The learned counsel further submits that the defendants appeared and filed their written statements wherein it has been claimed that suit land does not belong to the plaintiff and it is not a part of the Old Plot No. 811, rather it is a part of Old Plot No. 837 bearing Old Khata No. 116, Area 5 decimals wherein it has been recorded as gairmajarua aam and corresponding to the New Survey Khatiyan No. 253, Plot No. 1169, Area 3 decimals and New Plot No.1088, Area 0.2 decimals have been recorded as Anabad Sarva Sadharan. During the pendency of the title suit, the plaintiff/petitioner filed a petition dtd. 2/11/2016 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') praying for status quo over the suit land till disposal of the suit. The claim of the plaintiff/petitioner was contested by defendant no.5/respondent no.5, who filed his rejoinder, which was subsequently adopted by the other defendants. After hearing the parties, the learned Sub Judge-1, Buxar vide order dtd. 21/6/2017 rejected the aforesaid petition dtd. 2/11/2016 filed by the plaintiff/petitioner. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid rejection order of the learned trial court, the plaintiff/petitioner then filed Misc. Appeal No. 08/2017, which was also dismissed vide order dtd. 7/6/2023 passed by learned Additional District Judge-1, Buxar. Both the orders are under challenge before this Court.