Allahabad High Court
Lekhram And Another vs Ram Ji Lal And 2 Others on 26 September, 2014
Author: Abhinava Upadhya
Bench: Abhinava Upadhya
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 26 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 53172 of 2014 Petitioner :- Lekhram And Another Respondent :- Ram Ji Lal And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record.
By means of this writ petition the petitioners have come up to this Court challenging the order of the appellate court under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) CPC by which interim injunction application has been rejected.
The petitioners had filed a suit for permanent injunction being Suit No. 240 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chhata, District Mathura. In the said suit the petitioners also filed an application for interim injunction which was rejected on 18.2.2005. It is submitted that prior to the filing of the said suit the petitioners in whose favour patta was executed by the authorities on 20.5.1964 has constructed a residential house and are residing in the same.The defendants started to interfere with the possession of the petitioners claiming that a patta has been executed in their favour on 17.5.2002. The petitioners then moved an application under Rule 115-P of the UPZA&LR Rules,1952. The Collector having considered the application granted interim order on 11.12.2002 for the parties to maintain status quo. It is alleged that the interim injunction application of the petitioner in the suit being Suit No. 240 of 2002 was rejected by the trial court on 18.2.2005 on the ground that the validity of allotment of land is under scrutiny by the Collector under Rule 115-P of the said Rules in which parties have been directed to maintain status quo, as such, there is no requirement to grant interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the aforesaid allotment of land in the year 1964 in favour of the petitioners was held to be valid by the Collector and the allotment in favour of the respondents on 15.5.2002 was cancelled by order dated 31.10.2005.
The petitioners in an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC brought about the aforesaid fact with regard to cancellation of allotment of the respondents by order dated 31.10.2005 and prayed for grant of interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the petitioners but the appellate court declined to grant interim injunction.
The matter requires consideration.
Issue notice to the respondents returnable at an early date.
Learned counsel for the petitioners will take steps for service of notice upon the respondents within a week.
List after service of notice.
Till the next date of listing, the parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to the suit property.
Order Date :- 26.9.2014 SKM