Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1242 (MP)

Kok Singh v. Prem Bai

2012-12-03

SUJOY PAUL

body2012
ORDER 1. In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/defendant has challenged the order dated 29.9.2010 whereby in the Miscellaneous Appeal preferred by the plaintiff the Court below has granted protection to the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction (Annexure P-2). The Court below heard the matter on her application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. (Annexure P-7) and did not find any ground and reason to grant interim protection/injunction. Injunction was rejected by order dated 28.7.2011 (Annexure P-9). The plaintiff/respondent preferred a Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C. before the Court below, which was decided by impugned order Annexure P-1 in favour of the plaintiff and the defendants/petitioners are directed not to interfere in the suit land and plaintiff should not be dispossessed. Alienation of property is also prohibited by the impugned order. 2. Shri Amit Lahoti, learned counsel for the petitioner, criticized the said order and submits that the trial Court by Annexure P-9 rightly refused the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. He submits that for grant of injunction all the ingredients i.e. Prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss should be present in favour of the plaintiff and in absence thereof, merely because of one ground/ingredient, interim relief cannot be granted. He further submits that the revenue record show that name of present petitioners are mentioned and in fact they are in possession. He further submits that Court below in passing impugned order has erred in treating the petitioner’s written statement as his admission. He submits that there is no such admission as held by the Court below. 3. Per contra, Shri J.P. Mishra, learned counsel for plaintiff/respondent supported the order and submits that on the basis of material on record, the Court below has passed a plausible order and it is clear from the pleadings of the present petitioners in the written statement before the Court below that in the revenue record the name of plaintiff was recorded after the death of her husband Sabdal Singh. He submits that there is no illegality or perversity in the order impugned. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. He submits that there is no illegality or perversity in the order impugned. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. In the written statement before the Court below the defendant/petitioner had stated that Sabhal Singh expired about 12 years before and after his death the land is registered in the name of plaintiff but possession is with the defendants only. It is specifically pleaded that defendants are is possession and at no point of time plaintiff was in possession. On one hand Shri Lahoti relied on certain revenue records to show that the name of defendant is recorded in the revenue record, whereas Shri J.P. Mishra on the other hand, also relied on certain revenue entries to show that in the latest entries the name of plaintiff is recorded. 6. Shri Lahoti relied on (2010)1 SCC 689 (Kashi Math Samsthan and another Vs. Shrimad Sudhindra Thitha Swamy and another) in support of his contention about grant of injunction on availability of the ingredients. He also relied on 2008(2) BLJ 69=2008(4) MPHT (CG) (Jai Singh and others Vs. Doman Singh) in support of his contention. The legal proposition aforesaid relied upon by Shri Lahoti cannot be doubted. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that both the parties have relied on certain documents and it is the case of the petitioners that they are in possession, whereas the revenue record to some extent shows that the land is registered in the name of plaintiff. In view of diametrically opposite revenue records, it is not proper to express any opinion at this stage about the entries in favour of any party herein. The trial Court is best suited to decide this aspect. However, in the aforesaid factual backdrop wherein petitioners have specifically stated that they are in possession and there is no documentary evidence to show it otherwise, I deem it proper to modify the order dated 29.9.2012 and direct the parties to maintain status-quo which is prevailing today. It is expected that the Court below will expedite hearing of the matter and parties will co-operate in the proceedings. The Court below shall make all possible efforts to decide the matter expeditiously. 7. With the aforesaid direction, petition is disposed of. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. The Court below shall make all possible efforts to decide the matter expeditiously. 7. With the aforesaid direction, petition is disposed of. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. No cost.