Anjani Kumar - (1.) -This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arises out of proceedings of a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents in the present writ petition with the relief that the defendants be restrained by permanent injunction from interfering in any manner with the plaintiffs' possession over the land in dispute and the defendants be further restrained from demolishing the construction and structures standing over the land in dispute and further the trees which are already standing on the land in dispute should not be allowed to be cut down by the defendants. Further relief was that the defendants be restrained from raising any constructions over any portion of the land in dispute. Along with the aforesaid plaint, the plaintiffs filed an application for temporary injunction.
(2.) THE trial court vide its order dated 16th November, 1995, refused to grant temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the lower appellate court. THE lower appellate court vide its order dated 2nd January, 1996, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the trial court dated 16th November, 1995 by which the parties were directed to maintain status quo over the land in dispute during the pendency of the suit. THE plaintiffs were also directed not to raise any further construction on the open land and such construction as has been raised by the defendants may not be demolished till the suit is decided. It is against this lower appellate court's order, the defendants-present petitioners filed this writ petition. This Court while entertaining the aforesaid writ petition directed the parties to maintain status quo vide its order dated 20th February, 1996. The petition came up for admission before Hon'ble Mr. Justice D. K. Seth (as he then was), who dismissed the petition as having become infructuous by efflux of time. The petitioners-defendants filed an Application No. 3604 of 2000 stating therein that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the said petition cannot be said to have become infructuous. Therefore, the order dated 18th August, 1999, dismissing the writ petition as having become infructuous, be recalled. The writ petition be restored to its original number and be heard and decided on merits.
(3.) THE aforesaid Application No. 3604 of 2000 was allowed by this Court by the order dated 14th August, 2002 and the matter was heard on merits. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition have been given in detail in the plaint which as per statement made at Bar is still subject matter of trial court as the suit is still pending. It is only against the order rejecting the injunction application 6 Ga by the trial court, which was subject matter of appeal before the lower appellate court, and the lower appellate court after hearing the parties and considering the piece of evidence on record set aside the order of the trial court dated 16th November, 1995, and directed the parties to maintain status quo over the plot with regard to the land in dispute till the suit is decided. The plaintiffs were also directed not to raise any further construction on the open land and such construction as has been raised by the defendants may not be demolished till the suit is decided. It is against this order passed by the lower appellate court the defendants filed the present writ petition.;