Court No. - 36
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 749 of 2019 Petitioner :- Mahendra And Another Respondent :- Dev Prasad Singh And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Heard Shri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners.
A perusal of the plaint indicates that the petitioners are claiming possessory title over the suit land. It is also admitted fact from the record that Hindalco Industries has filed an eviction suit against the father of the plaintiffs before the Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Mirzapur which has been registered as Original Suit No.129 of 2018 (Hindalco Company Ltd. v. Jagarnath & Ors.) and is pending consideration. The plaintiffs/petitioners herein are contesting the said suit.
The trial court, therefore, cannot be said to have erred in rejection of temporary injunction application on the ground that the plaintiffs were required to implead true owner of the suit property, as they are claiming their possessory title over the suit property. No relief of injunction can be granted against private persons in relation to the land, which is not owned by the petitioners, without impleading true owner. The findings of facts as noted hereinabove are not disputed in the present petition.
Only submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that as the petitioners have made out the case of being in possession of the suit property and that the defendants were interfering in the suit property without any right, title or interest, the trial court could not have rejected the temporary injunction application. Submission is that the question of possession is most relevant in a suit for injunction and title to the suit property is not subject matter of adjudication in a simplicitor suit for injunction.
However, as to the legal position that a person seeking injunction has to come out with clean hands and has to implead all necessary and proper party in a suit brought by him, no exception could be taken.
In view of the facts reflected from the record that there is no disclosure of the true owner of the suit property and no such person has been impleaded therein, though the plaintiff/petitioners themselves are claiming possessory title, this Court does not find any error in the conclusion drawn by the trial court. No infirmity can be attached in the order of the first appellate court for the same reason.
The present petition is found devoid of merits and hence dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.2.2019/Jyotsana