Patna High Court - Orders
Ishwar Dayal Sah & Ors vs Raj Kumar Gupta & Ors on 6 January, 2016
Author: V. Nath
Bench: V. Nath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Second Appeal No.228 of 2002
======================================================
Ishwar Dayal Sah & Ors
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
Raj Kumar Gupta & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Nagendra Rai
Mr. Shri Krishna Sinha
Mr. Navin Nikunj
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Birendra Nath Mishra
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH
ORAL ORDER
10 06-01-2016Heard Mr. Nagendra Rai, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. S.,S.Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondents.
The Interlocutory Application (I.A. No. 7918 of 2015) has been filed on behalf of the defendant-appellants praying for injunction restraining the respondent lst set from damaging the existing structure or making new construction or dispossessing the appellants from the suit property during pendency of this appeal.
After considering the submissions and perusal of the impugned judgments, it is manifest that both the courts below have recorded the finding that the plaintiffs are in possession over the suit land measuring 6 dhurs and consisting of two shops. It is also apparent from the record that the defendants have not made any prayer by way of counter claim or otherwise for recovery of possession from the plaintiffs even though it is the stand of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the plaintiffs dispossessed Patna High Court SA No.228 of 2002 (10) dt.06-01-2016 2 the defendants from the suit property during pendency of the suit.
In that view of the matter, this Court does not find a prima facie case in favour of the defendants for grant of the relief of injunction as prayed. The balance of convenience and the ingredients of irreparable loss are also not in favour of the defendants. However, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff- respondents has submitted that if any construction has been made or is made by them the same shall abide by the outcome of this appeal, in accordance with law.
In view of the aforesaid facts and discussion, this Court rejects the prayer for grant of injunction as made by the appellants in the Interlocutory Application (I.A. No. 7918 of 2015) with the observation that if any construction has been made or is made by the plaintiffs the same shall abide by the result of this appeal, in accordance with law.
(V. Nath, J.) Snkumar/-
U