Narenddra Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for parties.
(2.) The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of plot, in dispute, wherein the defendant-U.I.T., in its written statement pleaded that the plot, in dispute, has been allotted to the Mahesh Shikshan Sansthan, who is in actual possession of the plot, in dispute. Learned Lower Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent being aggrieved with the same, the first appeal was preferred and the learned Lower Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal of the plaintiff-respondent and directed that the U.I.T. will not make any interference in the possession of the plaintiff-respondent, but the said directions will not be binding on Mahesh Shikshan Sansthan and its rights will not be affected adversely as Mahesh Shikshan Sansthan has not been impleaded as party in the suit. Being aggrieved with the same, the U.I.T., has preferred this second appeal.
(3.) Learned counsel for the defendant-appellants-U.I.T., does not dispute that the land, in dispute, is not in their possession, but the same was allotted to the Mahesh Shikshan Sansthan, therefore, as per admitted facts, dispute appears to be in between the plaintiff Gordhan Bhabhani and Mahesh Shikshan Sansthan. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellants thereafter i contended that the U.I.T., being statutory body has a statutory right to take action against any plot holder, in case they raised constructions contrary to the provisions of the statutory Act.;