Sanjay Misra - (1.) HEARD Sri Anil Sharma learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant.
(2.) THIS is a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 5.3.2010 passed in Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2008, Ratan Singh v. Gaon Sabha and others, whereby the appeal of the plaintiff has been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2007 passed in Original Suit No. 115 of 2002 has been confirmed whereby the injunction sought by the plaintiff has been refused. Sri Sharma has referred to the judgment of the Trial Court and points out to the findings recorded on Issue No. 1 which was, whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the land in dispute on the basis of an allotment. He states that the Trial Court has categorically recorded a finding that the plaintiff is in possession although not on the basis of an allotment. According to Sri Sharma even an unauthorised occupant/trespasser cannot be evicted otherwise than by following due process of law and therefore the Trial Court having found the plaintiff to be in possession could not have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. He refers to the judgment of the first appellate Court for the same contention and states that when the possession of the plaintiff was established over the land in question the first appellate Court ought to have decreed the suit of the plaintiff by setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court.
(3.) HAVING considered the submission of Sri Sharma it would be appropriate to refer to the plaint allegation with respect to the cause of action that accrued to the plaintiff for bringing a suit of injunction against the Gaon Sabha. Paragraph 7 of the plaint is quoted here under: JUDGEMENT_486_ADJ1_2011Image1.jpg From a reading of the aforesaid paragraph it is quite apparent that the cause of action alleged is that the defendants are saying that they shall evict the plaintiff by force. Neither any incident or details of the persons who had come to evict the plaintiff nor the date or time or even the place has been mentioned in the afore quoted paragraph. It appears that the cause of action has been pleaded but it is shorne of any detail for bringing the suit. In a suit for injunction the cause of action is key to maintain the suit therefore it has to be specifically pleaded in order to establish that the suit is bona fide and it is not pre-emptive particularly when it is against a local body.;