RANCHI, India, May 30 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on April 30:

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present revision application is directed against the order dated 08.07.2022 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Jamshedpur in Civil Misc. Appeal No.03 of 2022, whereby and whereunder the prayer for temporary injunction of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC declined by the learned trial court in Title Suit No.80 of 2017 filed by plaintiff/petitioner has been uphold and appeal was dismissed.

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the plaintiff-petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The plaintiff/petitioner has filed Title Suit No.80 of 2017 in the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division at Jamshedpur for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over the suit land under Khata No.299 comprising Plot Nos.809, 810, 811, 812 and 813 total area 1.90 acre situated at Mauza-Karandih, P.S. Parsudih, Revenue Thana No.1166, District-East Singhbhum and the defendants have no right, title and interest therein. The plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants/opposite party nos. 2 to 4 from raising any construction over the suit property, which has been rejected and against the above rejection order, plaintiff/petitioner filed Misc. Appeal No.03 of 2022, which has also been dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the grounds that learned lower appellate court has failed to consider that the defendant Nos.2 to 4 are making an attempt to change the nature and character of suit property forcibly and are trying to make construction upon the suit land, which would cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff/petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the lower court below failed to properly appreciate the correct meaning, tenor and spirit of the provisions, as enshrined under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and erred in law while passing the impugned order. It is further submitted that the defendant Nos.2- 4 had not filed any rejoinder to the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and did not appear for arguments before trial court in Original Suit No.80 of 2017. Learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiff has old house over the land in question under his occupation and it has been forcibly damaged by the defendant nos. 2 to 4 by making construction in the suit land and thus the plaintiff/petitioner herein has prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour, hence, the impugned order is fit to be set aside, allowing this revision petition.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=zDLovBVSUw02H8XukOjXfGW5ZdpXgY0s0ckInzv77MU5771eK03K9uW0M79L7FrW&caseno=C.R./41/2022&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010409502022&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.