Heard. The record is taken up for passing the necessary order. Perused the petition under Order 39 Rule 1/2 along with section 151 of the 1908 Code of Civil procedure and the objection petition, the supporting affidavit, the pleadings, submitted documents and the materials available on suit record. On such perusal, it appears to the court that this is a suit instituted on 06/12/2020 for permanent injunction against the defendants. Through the petition temporary injunction dated 06/12/2020, the plaintiff has prayed for a relief in the name of ‘injunction’ against the defendants. Accordingly, upon satisfaction, the court issued a show-cause notice on 07/12/2020 upon the defendants as to why the prayed relief should not be granted against them. Being served of the notice as such, the defendant opposite party (O.P.) submitted their written objection today on 29.09.2021 B.C.
On
perusal of both the petition and the written objection along with other
submitted documents (the RoR Khatian No. 229, registered deed No. 420 and 6498
dated 31/01/2012 and 22/2/1999, respectively), it appears that the plaintiff was
found to have prima facie case and title to the land from
which he is alleged to be dispossessed. In the hearing, albeit the
defendant-side claimed that the deeds placed before the court were not executed
and registered in accordance with law (the Local Government (Union Parishad)
Act, 2009 and the like), such a claim legally holds no water as long as those
registered deeds of the plaintiff have the force of legal effects
(validity).
Moreover,
considering possessory evidence available on the record, it also transpires
that the plaintiff appears to have possession of the landed property described
in the schedule to the petition and the plaint. Moreover, a letter dated
12.12.2019 signed by the concerned U.P. Chairman representing the Union
Parishad (the defendant No. 01) was issued against the plaintiff in order for
commanding the plaintiff to hand over the possession in the land towards the
U.P. Notably, both schedules to the plaint and the letter vividly appear to be
all the same in essence. Surprisingly, this letter unequivocally admits of the
fact that the plaintiff is now in possession of the suit land. Accordingly, the
plaintiff carries more weighty materials in support of his possession in the
suit in question.
On
perusal of the materials on record, it thus appears that since the defendants
are threatening to change the types and the mode of possession in the suit
lands, the petition of the plaintiff has good standing for demonstrating the
existence of threat for dispossession from and damages to the enjoyment of the
suit property. In such a condition, the court holds that unless the defendants
are restrained as such, the mode of enjoyment, possession, and the purpose of
the suit may be frustrated; and thus, the plaintiff appears to be prejudiced.
However, since the photographs produced before the court by both sides relating
to the current state of land in dispute suggest that a commissioner be
appointed for carrying out a local inspection in order for reaching out correct
decisions in this context, further hearing seems to be opportune on the next
date in this behalf. Till then, an ad- interim order may be
issued for restraining the defendants in the present context, taking into
consideration of the aforesaid appearing facts and weighing the competing possibilities
of the likelihood of comparative injury,
Hence,
it is ordered that
an ad-interim injunction
be issued against the defendants till the disposal of the plaintiffs’ petition
dated 06/12/2020. The defendants are hereby restrained from changing the
nature, character, and the mode of possession in the suit lands by
dispossession or interference save in accordance with the law. Moreover, the
Officer-in-Charge of the concerned Police Station shall take the necessary
steps to maintain this order's sanctity and force.
Send
copies of this order to the concerned along with necessary information.
Writs are to be put in at
once.