D.K. Trivedi, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2-rejecting the application for issue of temporary injunction restraining the Opposite Parties Nos. 3 and 4 from raising any construction over the land dispute.
(2.) The petitioner is the plaintiff and the Opposite Parties Nos. 3 and 4 are the defendants in the suit. The plaintiff filed a suit (Regular Suit No. 85/93) against the Opposite Parties Nos. 3 and 4 for injunction alongwith an application for interim injunction stating therein that the plaintiff is bhumidhar of the plot in dispute and the defendants have no right or title over the land but they are threatening to take forcible possession of the plot in dispute. The Opposite Parties Nos. 3 and 4 contested the suit and filed objection stating that the petitioner has no title or possession over the land in suit and in fact the opposite parties are the owners of the land in dispute. It is also alleged by them that the plaintiff has lost his case finally in second appeal against Durga Prasad about plot No. 7. It is said that Durga Prasad executed a sale-deed in favour of the opposite parties. The learned Munsif, Rae Bareli after considering the evidence on the record rejected the application for issue of temporary injunction holding that the plaintiff failed to prove prima facie case. The petitioner-plaintiff filed an appeal against the said order before the District Judge, Rae Bareli, but the same was also dismissed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Rae Bareli vide order dated 28.7.1993. The learned IInd Additional District Judge, Rae Bareli after considering the evidence on the record in great detail recorded a finding that the plaintiff has failed to prove his prima facie case and, therefore, no injunction can be issued against the defendants. The plaintiff aggrieved by the said judgment and order filed the present writ petition.
(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri K.K. Singh, the learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties Nos. 3 and 4. The contention of the petitioner's Counsel is that the Courts below have committed an error in considering the evidence on the record and holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove his prima facie case. According to him the earlier suit contested between the plaintiff and Durga Prasad was in respect of the other land but the Court below committed an error in not considering this fact and held that the plaintiff has failed to prove his prima facie case.;