CHAGGAN LAL Vs. PUSHPADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions arise in the similar set of facts and therefore were heard together and are being decided together.

(2.) In Civil Revision Petition No. 124/93 the impugned order of the Appellate Court remanding the case to the trial for taking proceedings under Order 1 Rule 8, CPC was under challenge. The facts of that case are that the revision petitioner-Chhaganlal and another filed a suit against respondent-Chhogaram and four others claiming a permanent injunction for removal of Chabutra built by the non-petitioners adjacent to the house of the petitioner-plaintiff. A temporary injunction was also sought in the suit in a mandatory form which was granted by the Trial Court directing removal of the Chabutra. An appeal against that order was filed in which the learned District Judge decided that the suit itself was not maintainable and if the plaintiffs wanted to continue the suit they will have to follow the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8, CPC. The District Judge, therefore, set aside the order of temporary injunction and sent back the file to the Trial Court with the direction that the trial should proceed only after the plaintiffs follow the procedure prescribed under Order 1 Rule 8, CPC. Against this order the Civil Revision Petition No. 124/93 has been filed.

(3.) In Civil Revision Petition No. 125/93 the facts are that 14 residents of village Mohilabas filed a suit against four persons including the two plaintiffs in the suit from which Civil Revision Petition No. 124/93 arose. In this suit, a permanent injunction against removal of the same chabutra which was the subject-matter of the suit from which Civil Revision Petition No. 124/93 arose, was claimed. The suit from which Civil Revision Petition No. 124/93 arose was filed on 20.5.88 whereas the suit from which Civil Revision Petition No. 125/93 arose was filed on 8.10.90. A temporary injunction was also sought in the suit which was not ground by the Trial Court. against that order, an appeal was filed which was disposed of by directing that the application for temporary injunction be decided afresh in the light of order passed in the case from which Civil Revision Petition No. 124/93 arose.