Heard Mr. MB Gandhi, Ld. Advocate for the appellant and perused the relevant papers including the true copy of the impugned order dated 16/8/2011 passed by the Ld. Principal Sr. Civil Judge, Ahmedabad [Rural], Mirzapur below temporary application exh. 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 495/2009.
2. The appellant happens to be the original plaintiff in the said suit and the plaintiff filed the above mentioned suit for declaration and permanent injunction pertaining to the disputed property and in the said suit, the appellant- plaintiff made application at exh. 5 seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents - defendants from causing any disturbance and interference or obstruction in his possession of the disputed land and further restraining the defendants from transferring or otherwise alienating the disputed land to any third party pending the said suit. It transpires that when the said application exh. 5 came up for admission hearing before the trial Court, vide order dated 14/10/2009 the trial Court issued show cause notice to the defendants. After the defendants appeared in the suit and the pleadings were completed, the trial Court passed the impugned order dated 16/8/2011 below the application exh. 5, whereby after hearing both the sides, so also considering the available material placed on record by both the sides, the Ld. Sr. Civil Judge was pleased to dismiss the application.
3. Considering the impugned order passed by the trial Court, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has no prima-facie case and the balance of convenience and question of irreparable loss are not in favour of the plaintiff. The trial Court took into consideration the relevant documentary evidence placed on record. More particularly considering the discussion made by the trial Court while replying point no. 1 regarding prima-facie case, the trial Court took into consideration 11 circumstances and other undisputed facts and came to the conclusion that the application deserves dismissal. Considering those 11 points, it clearly transpires that no error appears to have been committed by the trial Court while exercising its discretionary power in refusing to grant discretionary relief like the temporary injunction.
4. In the above view of the matter, the instant Appeal From Order appears to be devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the instant Appeal From Order stands dismissed. Considering the fact that the pending suit is of the year 2009, the trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the suit and to dispose it of in accordance with law at the earliest.
6. Since the Appeal From Order stands dismissed, Civil Application for stay, therefore, does not survive and accordingly stands disposed of.
(J.C.UPADHYAYA, J.) * Pansala.
Top