SURYA KANT CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Surabhi, learned counsel for the State.

(2.) This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein, the prayer is made for quashing the order dtd. 24/11/2022 passed in Original Suit No.42/2012 by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bokaro, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Sec. 151 of the CPC has been rejected. The further prayer is made for quashing the order dtd. 22/1/2024 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.23/2022 arising out of Original Suit No.42/2012 by the learned Principal District Judge, Bokaro, whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed.

(3.) Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff/petitioner and proforma respondent instituted Original Suit No.42/2012 against the opposite parties herein mentioning in the plaint that total area measuring 15 acres under Khata No.134, Plot No.2562 fully described in Schedule-A of the plaint including the suit property described in Schedule-B as part of Schedule-A previously belong to a Khebar Choudhary, Kamal Choudhary and Barjoo Choudhary having permanent raiyati right therein and accordingly, their names have been recorded as raiyat in respect of the entire land of Khata No.134. He submits that the plaintiff/petitioner is the descendant of Late Kamal Choudhary, who had 1/3rd share in Khata No.134 and as well as in Plot No.2562. He then submits that Kamal Choudhary died leaving behind his two sons namely Dina Nath Choudhary and Kina Nath Choudhary. Dina Nath Choudhary died leaving behind his two sons namely Rajen Choudhary and Babu Lal Choudhary. Babu Lal Choudhary also died leaving behind his son Suryakant Choudhary, who is petitioner in the present petition and Mathur Choudhary, who is proforma opposite party in this petition and Ananta Singh Choudhary. He further submits that the entire suit property of Khata No.134 is in possession of the plaintiffs and they have right, title and interest. He also submits that an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Sec. 151 of the CPC was filed in the said suit for temporary injunction, which has been rejected by the learned trial court on erroneous ground and against that order, the petitioner preferred the said civil miscellaneous appeal and the learned appellate court has also rejected the said appeal. He submits that there is apprehension that the nature of the land will be changed by the opposite parties/defendants and they are trying to make foundation over the land in question.