SANJAY MISRA,J. - (1.) Heard Sri K.S. Tiwari learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mahesh Chandra Joshi learned counsel for the respondents. Since all the parties are represented this writ petition is being decided finally today itself.
(2.) By means of this writ petition the petitioner challenges the order dated 22.05.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moradabad in Original Suit No. 248 of 2013 (Raja Chandra Vijay Singh v. Akshay Porwal and Another) whereby the temporary injunction application 6-C filed by the plaintiff petitioner has been rejected by the Trial Court as also against the judgment and order dated 17.07.2013 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court no. 6, Moradabad in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 44 of 2013 (Raja Chandra Vijay Singh v. Akshay Porwal) whereby the appellate court has dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff petitioner.
(3.) Learned counsel for the plaintiff petitioner has submitted that the dispute raised by the petitioner was with respect to Arazi no. 304 area 1.465 hectare which according to him is belonging to him. He states that the defendants were attempting to encroach upon the Arazi no. 304 when they started taking measurements and made preparation for digging foundation that the petitioner filed an application under Order 39, Rule 1 CPC for grant of temporary injunction. According to him the courts below have mislead themselves in considering the Amin report which related to Arazi no. 308 and not relating to Arazi no. 304 and hence the impugned orders are illegal and liable to be set aside.;