ASOPA, J. - (1.) WITH the consent of parties, the case was heard for final disposal.
(2.) THAT by this writ petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of rejection of T. I. Application dated 27. 10. 1999 as affirmed by the appellate court on 3. 3. 2005 in a civil suit for permanent injunction as well as mandatory injunction along with temporary injunction application against the respondent-defendant No. 1. The case of the plaintiff-petitioner is that he has been allotted a plot by the Gram Panchayat on 28. 8. 87 after confirmation of the bid on 13. 9. 86. Further case of the petitioner is that he has paid full amount and he is in possession of the said plot. It was also pleaded in the plaint that the defendant interfered with the possession of the plaintiff over the plot in dispute and started to fill the plinth. Therefore, the aforesaid civil suit was filed along with T. I. Application. The defendant filed his written statement as well as the reply to the application for Temporary Injunction, wherein he denied the contents of the plaint. It was pleaded by him that the plaintiff has mentioned the wrong description in the site plan annexed with the plaint. He has also submitted that the plot in dispute was allotted to him on 17. 3. 1990. That after hearing both the parties Trial Court rejected the temporary injunction application on the ground that the boundaries have not been correctly shown in the map produced by the plaintiff. Further the Trial Court has also given a finding that boundaries of the plot of the defendant appears to be correct and ultimately held on 27. 10. 99 at the time of rejection of T. I. Application that there is no prima facie case. Balance of convenience is also not in his favour and no irreparable loss will be caused to the petitioner-plaintiff.
(3.) AGAINST the said order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner and in appeal the Commissioner was appointed and the file of the Gram Panchayat was also summoned. Thereafter, the appellate court has also concluded that there is no prima facie case and the Trial Court has not committed any error in coming to the said conclusion and further gave the finding that balance of convenience, irreparable loss is also not in favour of the petitioner. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that both the courts below have virtually decided the boundaries of the plot of the plaintiff-petitioner while deciding the issue of prima facie case. The further submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that in such kind of cases, if the boundaries of the plots are disputed then the same could only be effectively adjudicated by allowing the parties to adduce the evidence and till then the order of status-quo ought to have been passed. The counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is a concurrent finding in his favour so this Court under Article 227 ought not to interfere with the said concurrent finding. ;