Court No. - 34
(1) Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2727 of 2019 Appellant :- Dalveer Singh And 56 Others Respondent :- Raja Bahadur Amar Pratap Singh And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Manish Kumar Nigam,Tripurari Pal Counsel for Respondent :- Deepak Singh Patel, Vinod Shankar Tripathi
(2) Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2729 of 2019 Appellant :- Dalveer Singh And 56 Others Respondent :- Raja Bahadur Amar Pratap Singh And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Manish Kumar Nigam,Tripurari Pal Counsel for Respondent :- Deepak Singh Patel,Vinod Shankar Tripathi
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra, J.
1. Heard Sri Manish Kumar Nigam, Advocate, for appellants and Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Vinod Shankar Tripathi, Advocate, for contesting respondents.
2. Both these appeals under Order 41 Rule 1 (r) C.P.C. have come up against the judgment and order dated 27.07.2019 passed by Sri Md. Naseem, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aligarh whereby it has rejected application 7C filed by plaintiffs-appellants for ad-interim injunction in respect of property in dispute and allowed Application No. 58C filed by defendants-respondents grating ad-interim injunction in favour of defendants in respect to property in dispute.
3. Interim injunction granted by Court below in favour of defendants reads as under:-
^^izkFkZuk i= 58x Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA fookfnr lEifRr ftls vehu fjiksVZ 48x ds lkFk layXu uD'ks esa ^^[kkyh txg izfroknh la[;k 1 o 2 dh crkbZ^^ ls iznf'kZr fd;k x;k gS rFkk tks tqt Hkkx fookfnr lEifRr gS] ij izfroknhx.k ds dCtk n[ky esa gLr{ksi djus rFkk izfroknhx.k dks mlls csn[ky djus ls oknhx.k dks nkSjku okn fu"ksf/kr fd;k tkrk gSA izkFkZuk i= 7x fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA vkifRr i{kdkjku rnkuqlkj fuLrkfjr dh tkrh gSA i=koyh okLrs rudhg fnukad 28&8&2019 dks is'k gksA^^ “The application being paper no. 58Ga is allowed. During the pendency of the case, the plaintiffs are restrained from interfering in the occupation and possession of the defendants and from dispossessing them of the disputed property which is shown to be “vacant place of defendant nos. 1 and 2” in the map enclosed with the report of the Ameen being 48Ga and which is part of the disputed property.
The application being 7Ga is rejected. The objections raised by the parties are accordingly decided. File be put up for 28.08.2019 for framing of issues.
(English Translation by Court)
4. Counsel for appellants contended that in revenue records of several years, appellants have been shown in possession and only on the basis of report of Lekhpal, possession of defendants has been taken by Court below who passed an ad-interim injunction in favour of defendants, though, it could not have been relied particularly ignoring decades of revenue record verifying possession of appellants.
5. In our view, this is real question which has to be decided by Court below and, therefore it would not be appropriate at this stage to record any finding as it would prejudice rights of the parties in the pending suit. However, both the parties agreed that this appeal may be disposed of by directing the parties to maintain status quo as on today in respect to property in dispute during pendency of suit.
6. Accordingly, we dispose of this appeal directing that parties shall maintain status quo as on today in respect to property in dispute during pendency of Original Suit No 297 of 2019 before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aligarh.
Order Date :- 30.09.2019 PS