Patna High Court - Orders
Ashit Kumar vs Ram Sakal Singh & Anr. on 12 September, 2014
Author: Rakesh Kumar
Bench: Rakesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 108 of 2013
======================================================
Ashit Kumar S/o Sri Brij Mohan Singh, resident of village and P.O. -
Amhora, P.S. Bihta, District Patna.
.... .... Plaintiff/Appellant
Versus
1. Ram Sakal Singh S/o Late Ram Prasad Singh, resident of village -
Amhora, P.S. Bihta, District Patna.
2. The Estate of Late Sakaldari Singh S/o Late Ram Prasad Singh, resident
of village Amhora, P.S. Bihta, District Patna.
.... .... Defendants/Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Abhinay Raj
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3. 12-09-2014Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
The present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short "CPC") has been preferred against order dated 16-11-2012 passed in Title Suit No. 18 of 2011 by the learned A.D.J.-VI, Danapur. By the said order, learned court below has rejected the petition filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC for grant of injunction.
It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that during the pendency of probate case, in a land acquisition proceeding, compensation amount in respect of land in question was to be granted and apprehending that the compensation amount may not be totally withdrawn, a petition was filed for granting injunction, which has been rejected.
Patna High Court MA No.108 of 2013 (3) dt.12-09-20142/2
I have perused the impugned order as well as materials on record. On perusal of the materials on record, the Court is of the opinion that the learned court below, while rejecting the injunction petition, has not committed any error. Fact remains that till date, probate has not been granted. Meaning thereby that presently there is no prima facie case in favour of plaintiff/appellant. Secondly, the prayer was made for restraining disbursement of the compensation amount in a land acquisition proceeding. Meaning thereby that even in case of refusal, the appellant was not going to suffer irreparable loss. In that view of the matter, I do not find any defect in the order impugned.
The appeal stands dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay/-
U T