- (1.) Aggrieved by order dated 18.12.2014 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 107 of 2012, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) The Petitioners are plaintiffs in Title Suit No.08 of 2012 which was instituted on 19.01.2012. The respondents appeared and filed their written statement on 03.07.2012. The dispute pertains to 79 decimals of land comprised in Plot No. 772, Khata No. 77 in Mouza Rajpura, Dhanbad. The plaintiffs have claimed title over the suit schedule property by virtue of registered sale-deed dated 20.02.1973 executed by Anil Bauri, Jyoti Bauri and Moti Bauri. Anil Bauri was the purchaser from the descendant of recorded tenants and Jyoti Bouri and Moti Bouri are descendants of the recorded tenants. The respondents also claimed to have purchased the suit property from one Ajit Kr. Dutta by virtue of saledeed registered on 13.09.1976. Immediate cause of action for filing Title Suit No. 08 of 2012 is stated to be action of the respondents in demolishing the boundary wall and amalgamating the suit schedule property with their own property. In the pending Title Suit No. 08 of 2012 an application for injunction was filed, in which, on contest, the Trial Court passed order dated 05.04.2012 directing the parties to maintain "status quo". Challenging the said order the respondents preferred Misc. Appeal No. 107 of 2012 which has been allowed. Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court.
(3.) Mr. Atanu Banerjee, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Trial Court has found a "prima-facie" case in favour of the plaintiffs still, it declined to pass an order of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs. Assailing the appellate order, it is submitted that the Appellate Court did not record a finding that the finding of the "prima-facie" case in favour of the plaintiffs recorded by the Trial Court was perverse or contrary to the pleadings on record and therefore, Appellate Court was not justified in interfering with order dated 05.04.2012 passed by the Civil Judge, (Senior Division) II, Dhanbad. It is further submitted that the Appellate Court has apparently recorded an erroneous finding and interfered with the order dated 05.04.2012 in as much as, the alleged admission in paragraph nos. 18 & 24 of the plaint have been misconstrued by the Appellate Court.;