SANJAY TANUK Vs. MALLIKA ASHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Amar Kr. Sinha along with Mr. Sandeep Verma, learned counsels appearing for the appellant, Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. K. Hari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4

(2.) This appeal is preferred under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and order dtd. 11/3/2022 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division-I), Jamshedpur in Original Title Suit No.13 of 2021 by which the learned Court has rejected the petition under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code wherein the prayer was made for temporary injunction.

(3.) Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the plaintiff namely Sanjay Tanuk filed Original Title Suit No.13 of 2021 against the defendants praying therein a decree for declaration that the plaintiff has legal possession over the suit premises on ownership basis along with a roof right and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering the plaintiff in any manner in respect of plaintiff's possession and interest over the suit property. He further submits that the plaintiff is in peaceful possession of Shop No.5, 6 and 27 at Laxmi Mansion, Main Road, Bistupur Jamshedpur where he runs his business in the name and style of M/s Taunk Brothers since very long. He then submits that earlier the plaintiff was the tenant under Late Hemendra Laxmi Das Asher, and Smt. Mallika Asher (defendant No.1) in respect of said shop No.5, 6 and 27 which is the subject matter of the suit and by a written instrument dtd. 20/2/2015 said Hemendra Laxmi Das Asher and his wife Smt. Mallika Asher transferred the ownership of said three shops to the plaintiff. In this background, he submits that Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code, the petition was filed for temporary injunction before the learned Court which has been erroneously rejected. He draws the attention of the Court to para 11 of the written instrument of the defendant and submits that the possession has been admitted therein and if a possession is admitted the appellant is having a strong prima facie case. He further draws the attention of the Court to the averments made in the said petition and submits that there is threat of dispossession and in view of that he submits that the learned Court has wrongly passed the order. On these grounds, he submits that the said order may kindly be set aside and temporary injunction may kindly be allowed in favour of the petitioner, who is the plaintiff.