BASTI RAM Vs. SMT. SHANTI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 12.01.2017 and the order dated 13.12.2016 whereby the applications seeking Temporary Injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC have been rejected by the Trial Court and so also by the Appellate Court.

(2.) Mr. M.S. Purohit counsel for the petitioner contended that the Trial Court has erred in observing that the plaintiff-petitioner has not placed on record, the order of the allotment. To support his contention, he has placed before the Court, for perusal, a copy of the order dated 24.10.1993 and submitted that the same was very much there in the record of the Trial Court. In light of the said contention, he urged that the Courts below have erred in deciding the issue of prima facie case, which was very much in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff.

(3.) A perusal of the copy of the order dated 24.10.1993, reveals that it is not a letter of allotment, rather it is a letter of sanctioning allotment in favour of the petitioner, subject to fulfilling certain conditions.