LAXMI KANT TIWARI Vs. MEENA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties.

(2.) IT appears that the husband of opposite party no.1 and father of opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 had purchased certain lands from opposite party nos. 6 and 7. There appears to have been a dispute with District Board vis -a -vis with Dilip Singh, the husband of opposite party no.1. Dilip Singh filed a suit against the District Board. The plaintiffs -petitioners were not a party. The suit was decreed but later on the decree was got amended by the said Dilip Singh. The change was that originally the decree was for a piece of land measuring 48 feet. The measurement, as per the original decree, was 48 feet/ 31 feet 9 inch measuring 2 katha 7 dhurs. By the amendment of decree the area was maintained as the same but dimension was changed to 81 feet/25 feet 9 inch. On the basis of this amended decree the said opposite party got delivery of possession as against the District Board. The plaintiffs petitioners had also purchased lands from the same vendor. They now alleged that they have no problem in respect of delivery of possession if it had been effected to the opposite party on the basis of unamended decree. By virtue of amended decree it is alleged by the plaintiffs -petitioners that their access to the District Board road is being blocked, the plaintiffs -petitioners not being a party in the suit as mentioned above they say that the decree would not bind them. It is because of this they have got the present suit as against the opposite party. In the said suit their right of access to the District Board road is being denied. They prayed for injunction. The same was refused by the trial court as well as by the appellate court primarily on the ground that defendants -opposite party had got possession by virtue of a decree and till such time the decree is operated the plaintiffs -petitioners had no prima facie case.

(3.) ON the other hand, on behalf of opposite party nos. 1 to 4 it is submitted that the decree was corrected because of wrong dimension given. The sale deed clearly mentioned north to south 81 feet and the decree was accordingly corrected. To this the plaintiffs -petitioners submit that the sale deed has interpolation in the said dimension. In my view, these are the matters which are to be decided in course of trial. The fact remains that the plaintiffs -petitioners complained of blocking of District Board road by the amended decree. The decree does not bind them. It may bind the District Board. In such a situation, I am of the opinion that the parties should maintain status quo. The trial court in order to settle the matter of injunction shall immediately appoint a survey knowing Pleader Commissioner who will demarcate the land of the two parties and the road of District Board. He shall draw a proper map of the area concerned. The measurement must first be done on the basis of the sale deed of the respective parties and then compared with the amended decree to show any deviation. The trial court would then hear the parties, consider their objections and pass the final order in respect of injunction.