JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 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 dated 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 Section 151 of the CPC has been rejected. The further prayer is made for quashing the order dated 22.01.2024 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 1/3 rd 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. 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 Section 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. 4. From the records, it transpires that the said suit itself was instituted for declaration of right, title and interest. The contentions were made on behalf of the opposite parties/defendants before the learned court that they are original owners, who were ancestors of the petitioner/plaintiff and they have sold 5.32 acres of land in favour of ancestors of opposite parties/defendants by two sale deeds and 4.35 acres land was acquired by the Forest Department by virtue of notification dated 24.05.1958 and remaining lands of suit Khata was acquired by the State for SAIL and consequent employment in SAIL went in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff Surya Kant Choudhary and in view of that, the petitioner has absolutely no land left in suit Khata. In these backgrounds, the petitioner herein has not been able to make out prima facie case for such prayer and both the learned Courts have dealt with this aspect of the matter and they have been pleased to reject the application/appeal filed by petitioner. 5. In view of the above facts, there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the learned courts and, as such, this petition is dismissed.