RAMA Vs. DEEPLAL & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-original plaintiff challenging the order dated 26.5.09 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 1, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in Civil Appeal No. 6/09 whereby the appellate court has confirmed the order dated 16.2.09 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 33/07.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submited that the petitioner was in possession of the suit premises, however was forcibly dispossessed by the respondents-defendants for which the suit has been filed. According to him both the courts below have misappreciated the contentions raised by the plaintiff and the said orders deserve to be set aside.

(3.) However, the learned counsel for the respondents-defendants taking the court to the findings of the appellate court submitted that the petitioner-plaintiff was not in possession in the suit premises at the time of filing of the suit, as the plaintiff had filed an FIR on 17.11.07 i.e. Prior to filing of the suit alleging that she was forcibly dispossessed by the respondentsdefendants.