JHARKHAND HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON RAMDHYAN YADAV V/S BABULAL YADAV

RANCHI, India, June 4 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on May 5:

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sole Opposite party.

2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 04.08.2023 passed by learned District Judge-I, Palamau in Civil Misc. Appeal No.16 of 2022 arising out of Original Suit No.444 of 2021 whereby the learned court has been pleased to set aside the order dated 26.08.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division-I, Palamau under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the plaintiff in the said suit and he has filed a petition under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC for injunction which has been allowed by the learned court. He submits that the petitioner is having registered document with regard to the land in question and considering this aspect of the matter, the learned trial court has allowed the injunction by the order dated 26.08.2022 and submits that on the appeal preferred by the defendant, the learned appellate court has wrongly reversed the said order and the spirit of injunction has not been rightly appreciated.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sole Opposite party/defendant submits that the learned court has minutely examined the order of the learned trial court and has found that the registered deed in favour of the defendant is of the earlier period comparing with the registered deed in favour of the petitioner/ plaintiff and even the rent receipt was issued in favour of the defendant for the registered document. However, the plaintiff has not been able to produce any rent receipt in favour of the suit land and further the revisional survey of records of rights has also been published in favour of the Opposite party/ defendant.

5. Considering the above aspect of the matter, the learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal and in view of the above, the learned court has found that so far as the prima facie case is concerned, the petitioner/ plaintiff has failed to prove the same in view of the fact that the registered deed is in favour of the Opposite party/ defendant prior to the registered document of the petitioner/ plaintiff. Further the plaintiff has not been able to produce the rent receipt with regard to the registered deed. However, the defendant has been able to produce the rent receipt. Further revisional survey of records of rights also records the name of the defendant which clearly suggest that the Opposite party/ defendant were in possession and the dispute is there with regard to possession.

6. In view of that prima facie case is not shown by the petitioner/ plaintiff and the Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned order. As such, this petition is dismissed.

. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.