SANWARMAL AGARWAL @ SANWARMAL BANSAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I .A. No.3550 of 2014 has been filed with a prayer to pass an order directing the State respondents i.e. respondent nos.1 to 5 to open lock and seal put by them by which the factory of the appellant has been forcibly closed.

(2.) IT is contended that the appellant came in possession over the suit premises after purchasing the suit land by registered sale deed no.3128 dated 17.03.1988 and 3152 dated 18.03.1988 from settlee Bhagwati Prasad Khetan. Thereafter appellant constructed a boundary around the suit land and installed two factories in the name and style of M/s Maa Kalyani Udyog and M/s Jai Maa Kali Udyog Ltd. It is also pointed out that the land was also mutated vide mutation no.406(ii)/9899.

(3.) IT is brought to the notice of this Court that B.P.L.E. Case No.244/9192 was decided against the appellant whereafter B.P.L.E. Appeal no.01/98 was preferred but the appellant also lost the same and it was dismissed vide order dated 27.12.1999. Thereafter C.W.J.C. No.1414 of 2000 was preferred before this Hon'ble Court but it stood dismissed on 10.11.2001. Again the matter was agitated by the appellant vide L.P.A. No.681 of 2001 in which a Division Bench of this Court had given liberty to the appellant to obtain order of interim injunction in accordance with law against the State Government and the order dated 13.01.1998 passed in B.P.L.E. Case No.244/91 92 was directed to be kept in abeyance. Pursuant to the said order appellant filed petition for grant of injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the appellant over the suit land. The learned SubJudge pleased to dismiss said petition on 26.07.2004 and then the appellant preferred Misc. Appeal No.43 of 2004 before the District Judge, Dhanbad against said order of refusal of injunction. The appellant succeeded in obtaining injunction order in said Misc. appeal and the respondents/defendants were directed not to interfere with peaceful possession of the appellant and said order was passed on 30.08.2004. Title Suit No.57 of 2004, filed by the appellant, stood dismissed on 25.09.2013 whereafter Title Appeal No.101 of 2013 was filed before the learned Principal District Judge. The appellant again filed petition under Order XXXIX Rule 1(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the appellate Court but the petition was kept pending and it was agreed by and between the parties that the appeal may be disposed of on merit.