MOHAN LAL Vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 2.4.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Sriganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') whereby the application preferred on behalf of the appellant under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed a civil suit before the trial court praying for declaring the Will dated 13.7.1992 executed by one Panna Ram in favour of respondents Rajendra Kumar and Luna Ram as void. Along with the said suit, the appellant also filed an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for granting temporary injunction in his favour and against the respondents. The said application came to be dismissed by the learned trial court vide impugned order while observing that the appellant has failed to make out a prima facie case in his favour. The learned trial court has further observed that the respondents are in possession of the land on the basis of the Will executed on 13.7.1992 and, if they are restrained from cultivating the said land, they will suffer irreparable loss and, therefore, balance of convenience and point of irreparable loss is in favour of the respondents.

(3.) Assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that appellant is in possession of four bighas of agriculture land belonging to deceased Panna Ram and he is entitled to retain the possession of said four bighas of land till disposal of the civil suit filed by him for cancellation of the Will dated 13.7.1992, alleged to have been executed in favour of the respondents by Panna Ram. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial court has not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter and erred in observing that no prima facie case exists in favour of the appellant. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties should be directed to maintain status quo regarding the possession of the disputed land, however, the court below has illegally refused to grant the said relief without appreciating the facts in right perspective.