Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramakant Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 3 September, 2013
1
W. P. No.8583/11 (I)
3.9.2013.
Shri A. D. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Brahm Datt Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent No.1
and 2.
Shri Sanjiv Tuli, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 & 4. Heard on the question of admission.
The petitioner/ plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 15.9.2010 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Satna in Misc. Civil Appeal No.54/2007 affirming the order dated 9.8.2007 passed by 1st Civil Judge Class-II, Satna in C.O.S. No.17-A/05 whereby his application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for issuing ad- interim injunction restraining the respondents to interfere in his possession of the entire disputed land stated in the plaint has been dismissed with respect of the part of land which was as alleged by the respondent No.3 and 4 was sold to them by the predecessor of the petitioner through some registered sale deed, while such application was allowed for remaining part of such land.
Having heard the counsel present, after perusing the impugned order of the courts below, according to which aforesaid application of the petitioner has been allowed in part till the extent of such land which was remained under the Bhoomiswami right in possession of the petition even after executing the alleged sale deed in favour of the respondent No.3 and 4 by the predecessor of the petitioner. So, in such premises it is apparent that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have not committed any error in dismissing the application of the petition till the extent of land which was already 2 sold and transferred as alleged in favour of respondent No.3 and 4 because the possession of such part of the land was not found with the petitioner. Consequently, I have not found any perversity, illegality, irregularity or anything against the propriety of law in the impugned orders of the courts below requiring any interference. resultantly, this petition being devoid of any merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, in the available circumstances the trial Court is directed to take an endeavor to expedite the hearing of the suit and conclude the same as early as possible.
Pursuant to aforesaid dismissal, IA No.6787/11, petitioner's application for issuing ad-interim injunction does not require any consideration, hence the same is also dismissed.
Petition is dismissed, as indicated above.
(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k