AB REHMAN BHAT Vs. ALI MOHD MANROO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ali Mohammad Manroo filed a suit for recovery of possession and injunction in respect of land measuring 14 marlas in survey No. 177 and 10 marlas in S.No. 179 situated at Barzulla, on the ground that the said plaintiff has been in possession of this land for more than two decade and has been dispossessed during the pendency of an earlier suit for permanent and prohibitory injunction (with alternate relief sought to injunct the defendants from interfering with plaintiff's easementary rights over the land). In the earlier suit, the trial court declined to issue and ad-interim injunction on an application and against that order plaintiff filed an appeal, which came to be dismissed by 3rd Addl. District Judge Srinagar. The order of the trial court dt. 12.3.97 (1st Addl. Munsiff) rejecting the prayer for ad-interim injunction and the order of the appellate court dt. 1.5.97 (3rd Addl. District Judge Srinagar) dismissing the appeal, were subjected to revision filed by the plaintiff before the High Court. The revision has been also dismissed. The plaintiff's further case is that during the revision proceedings before the High Court (revision file 23 of 1995), the High Court 6.5.1997 issued notices and sent for the record and directed parties to maintain status quo on spot as on that day and date and thereafter on 8.5.97 defendants are alleged to have dispossessed the plaintiff from suit land after colluding with each other by use of muscle power. After dispossession, plaintiff approached C. J.M. Srinagar for directing the concerned police to implement the order dt. 6.5.97 of the High Court. The C.J.M. directed the SHO P/S Sadder to maintain of status quo as ordered by High Court on spot and to restrain the violation of the order. It appears from para 12 of the plaint, that a complaint of tampering with the High Court order dt. 6.5.97, is pending in the High Court and enquiry is on for ascerting the truth and genuiness or otherwise of the complaint. The plaintiff also approched the administrator Municipality in respect of encrochment of defendants' upon plaintiff's land and their act of undertaking construction on spot in contravention of provisions of Municipal. Though, the complaint was marked to ward Officer, he failed to take any action. As no action (s) was taken by police and the municipality, the plaintiff approached the High Court through the medium of CMP No. 55/97 praying for attachment of the suit/land and detaining of the defendants in Civil prison for violating the status quo order dt. 6.5.97. Alongside plaintiff also prayed for appointment of commissioner for spot inspection. The matter came up before the High Court on 31.5.97 and the following order was passed:-

(2.) The Dy. Registrar made local inspection but plaintiff is not having copy of his report. The plaintiff has been virtually dispossessed from suit land and his right of ingress and egress over the land has been blocked by the raised brick wall of the defendants. Plaintiff is accordingly invoking the provisions of Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, for recovery of possession, through medium of this suit." The plaintiff accordingly has prayed for decree for recovery of possession of suit land admeasuring 1 kanal 4 marlas against the defendants and for mandatory injunction commanding defendants to demolish the raised wall.

(3.) Co-extensive with the suit, plaintiff moved an application for interim injunction on same set of facts and further claiming prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour. Besides praying that the justice require that the nature and character of the suit property should not change and no construction should be raised on the land and the wall raised on the land should be demolished.