OM PRAKASH Vs. GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-defendant assailing the legality and validity of the order dtd. 26/4/2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sawaimadhopur dismissing the Civil Misc. Appeal No.19/2020 preferred against the order dtd. 18/7/2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge Khandar, District Sawimadhopur in Civil Misc. Case No.11/2020 (CIS No.11/2020) whereby, the temporary injunction application filed by the respondents-plaintiffs was allowed.

(2.) The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner stating therein that he was trying to encroach upon 20 ft. wide public way situated towards the southern side of their property. It was stated that this way was mentioned in the patta issued to them by the competent authority. The temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiffs alongwith the suit came to be allowed by the learned trial Court vide its order dtd. 18/7/2020 whereby, the petitioner was restrained from encroaching and raising construction on the 20 ft. wide public way marked A,B,C,D in the site plan annexed with the application, which was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner by way of a civil misc. appeal which came to be dismissed by the learned appellate Court vide its order dtd. 26/4/2022, the subject matter of challenge.

(3.) Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Courts below erred in failing to appreciate that, as a matter of fact, plaintiffs were issued patta of the land including the 20 ft. wide public way and they had encroached upon the same. He submitted that he is in possession of the land purchased by him vide registered sale deed dtd. 27/7/2000. In this regard, he relied upon the Commissioner report dtd. 26/8/2021. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed, the order dtd. 26/4/2022 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the respondents under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC be dismissed.