- (1.) HEARD Sri M.E. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ravindra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party No.3 and the learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, I proceed to decide the present writ petition finally at admission stage.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed a suit for permanent in­junction along with an application for tem­porary injunction. The application for tem­porary injunction was rejected by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Ambedkar Nagar. Feeling ag­grieved, the petitioner preferred statutory ap­peal under Order 43, Rule 1 of the C.P.C., which too was dismissed by the District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar. From the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it borne out that the plaintiff-petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction with regard to his ap­purtenant land indicating therein that the dis­puted land is situated up to the distance about 8-9 ft. from his house. The suit was filed on 9-5-2007. After filing of the suit, it appears that the parties were called on at the police station, Hanswar on 12-5-2007 and in the presence of the S.H.O. of police station, Hanswar a compromise was prepared and signed by the parties. It has been stated by the counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner that the compromise was executed forcibly under the influence of the police and the distance indi­cated in the Commissioner's report is not cor­rect. It is alleged that the Commissioner un­der the influence of the defendant-respondent had recorded incorrect distance from the house of the plaintiff-petitioner of the disputed site. The Civil Judge (S.D.), Ambedkar Nagar relying upon the compromise and Commissioner's report had rejected the ap­plication for temporary injunction against which an appeal was preferred, which too was dismissed by the District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar directing the Civil Judge (S.D.), Ambedkar Nagar to proceed with the case. From the Naksha Najari prepared by the Com­missioner, it appears that the land in dispute is situated adjacent to the plaintiff-petitioner's house. With regard to the report of the Com­missioner, the plaintiff-petitioner had filed an objection, which was entertained and the re­port was accepted subject to evidence. Ac­cordingly, the suit is pending at the evidence stage.
(3.) UNDISPUTEDLY , the land in dispute is situ­ated adjacent to the plaintiff-petitioner's house. Whether it belongs to the plaintiff or defendant is the subject-matter of evidence, which can be ascertained only after the out­come of the trial. The Commissioner has shown the distance of the disputed site as 57 ft., which has been denied by the plaintiff. In any case, if the nature of the land is changed, it may cause irreparable loss and injury to the plaintiff. No much reliance can be placed on an unregistered agreement entered into be­tween the parties before the police of the po­lice station, Hanswar unless its validity is judged in accordance with law. In such circumstances, at least during the course of trial it was incumbent upon the learned trial court to direct the parties to maintain status quo and the nature of the land should not be changed.;