M.Y.Eqbal, J. - (1.) The revision application is directed against the Judgment and order dated 12th September, 2002 passed in miscellaneous appeal No, 6/01 whereby the First Additional Judge, Jamshedpur allowed the appeal filed by plaintiff-respondent and set aside the order dated 3-2-2001 passed by Munsif Jamshedpur who refused to grant temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with possession in respect of the suit property.
(2.) The plain tiff respondent filed the aforementioned suit a decree of permanent injunction against defendant and his men not to disturb the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. In the said suit separate application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 was filed for the grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendant not to disturb their peaceful possession. The learned Munsif refused to grant injunction holding that admittedly the suit property has been recorded in the revenue record of right in the name of State of Bihar and merely in the remark column the name of the plaintiff was entered as 'illegal possession'. The Munsif further held that the State of Bihar is the necessary party and in their absence relief cannot be granted to the plaintiff. The Munsif further found that a proceeding under Section 144, Cr.PC was initiated and the same was converted into proceeding under Section 145, Cr.PC and the said order by which the proceeding was converted into Section 145, Cr.PC proceeding was challenged by the plaintiff by filing criminal revision 64/68 and the said criminal revision was dismissed and still proceeding under Section 145, Cr. PC is pending. Taking into consideration all these facts the learned Munsif refused to grant temporary injunction. However, Court of appeal below proceeded on the basis that there is an apprehension of breach of peace which entitled the plaintiff to file the suit for a decree of permanent injunction. The Court of appeal below further held that when the relief was sought for against the defendant only there was no need to implead the State of Bihar as party defendant. On these basis the appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Munsif, Jamshedpur.
(3.) Before appreciating the legality and propreity of the order passed by the appellate Court, I would like to refer some of the paragraphs of the plaint filed by the plaintiff. In para 2 of the plaint it is stated that the suit land is recorded in the current survey settlement operation wrongly opened in the name of Bihar Sarkar. In para 3 of the plaint it is stated that plaintiff's father came to Jamshedpur long before and verbally purchased the land in question and other land from one Baikunth Mahto and since then he was residing there. It is not disclosed in the paragraphs when the land was purchased by the plaintiff. In para 4 of the plaint is stated that the plaintiff with his own funds constructed several kuchha-pucca rooms over the land and let out the same to various tenants.;