D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) Leave is granted to convert this petition into one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) The petitioner plaintiff had filed a suit being Original Suit No. 211 of 1997 before the learned Civil Judge. (Junior Division). Haridwar, for injunction against the defendant opposite parlies. In connection with the said suit, he had filed an application for injunction, which was rejected by an order dated 30th May, 1998 passed by the learned trial court. A Civil Misc. Appeal No. 97 of 1998 was preferred by the plaintiff. By an order dated 31st May, 1999 the learned Additional District Judge. Second Court, Haridwar, had dismissed the said appeal. These two orders have since been challenged.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. S. K. Misra contends that the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie as is apparent from the plaint and the application for injunction supported by an affidavit and also by production of documents on which he relied upon. But the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court relied on only on the documents in which the petitioner's name has been shown to have been recorded as Manager and had held that the petitioner cannot be the owner. At the same time had committed an illegality and Irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in relying upon the deed of trust executed in 1984 to deny the title of the petitioner and confer the title on the defendants on the strength thereof. He had also pointed out many other infirmities in both the orders and contended that the orders could not be sustained. Since the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case, therefore, the injunction application could not have been dismissed.;