LAWS(MPH)-2022-9-162

TARUN Vs. GOMA

Decided On September 03, 2022
TARUN Appellant
V/S
GOMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant petition, the petitioner has questioned the legality, validity and propriety of order dtd. 26/11/2021 (Annexure-P-4), whereby the Court below in an appeal preferred under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC assailing the order passed in Civil Suit No.58-A/17 has rejected application of temporary injunction. By the impugned order, appellate Court set aside the order dtd. 25/10/2021 and allowed the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff/respondent no.1, directing that till the decision of the civil suit i.e RCS 58-A/17 the defendants shall not disturb the possession of the plaintiff over the land belonging to survey No.52/1 area ad-measuring 2.839 hectares situated at Gram Chhindwara Savasan Tahsil Athner District Betul.

(2.) As per the facts of the case, the plaintiff (respondent no.1 herein) institute a regular Civil Suit bearing No. 58-A/2017 against original defendants no.1 and 2 (who are respondents no.2 and 3 herein), (defendant no.2 i.e. Kishori died later on) and also against other defendants who were later on added as defendants claiming title on the ground of adverse possession over the land bearing survey no.52/1, area ad-measuring 2.839 hectare situated at Gram Chhindwara Savasan, Tahsil Athner District Betul. An application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC was also filed claiming injunction that the defendants be restrained from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff.

(3.) It is pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff has been in possession of the land in question for more than 12 years and cultivating the same. The land was in the name of Laxmi Bai widow of Sakharam. It is also pleaded in the plaint that plaintiff/respondent no.1 earlier also instituted a suit for specific performance of sauda chitthi (agreement to sale) made in favaour of the plaintiff by Laxmi Bai and Kisna (respondent no.2 herein), but Laxmi Bai and her son denied to perform any such agreement to sale and also filed a counter claim, but later on it has been withdrawn.