Court No. - 34
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 866 of 2018 Appellant :- Sita Ram Respondent :- Dev Prakash and others Counsel for Appellant :- Manoj Kumar Rajvanshi Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Kumar Singh, Madhusudan Dikshit
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
1. Heard Sri N.C. Rajvanshi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri M.K. Rajvanshi, Advocate, for appellant and Sri Madhusudan Dixit, Advocate, appearing for respondents 1/1 and 1/2. Respondents-2, 3 and 4 are represented by Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, Advocate,
2. This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) C.P.C. has arisen from judgment and order dated 18.11.2017 passed by Sri Mahesh Chandra Verma, 1st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Saharanpur in Original Suit No. 84 of 2012 rejecting ad-interim application under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C. observing that plaintiff neither could show prima facie case nor balance of convenience nor irreparable loss.
3. Learned counsel for appellant contended that suit for injunction was filed and by declining to grant injunction, Court below has virtually decided the suit particularly when findings on various aspects have been recorded by Court below.
4. So far as findings recorded on various aspects are concerned, the same are confined for the purpose of considering whether ad interim injunction should be granted or not and when a counsel raises various pleas, Court is under an obligation to consider the same and decide. When such a finding is given while considering application under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C., it is only for that purpose and has not to be treated as final expression of opinion of merits of the matter since after evidence adduced by both the parties, Trial Court at the final stage has to re-examine the matter in the light of evidence adduced by parties and observations made while deciding ad-interim injunction application are of no consequences and cannot be looked into for any purpose since that cannot be treated as expression of opinion on merits of case. Therefore, this apprehension on the part of learned counsel for appellant is without any basis.
5. So far as prima facie case is concerned, learned Senior Counsel appearing for appellant contended that there was sale-deed of 1960 but Court below has given adequate reasons to show that it was apparently doubtful and suspicious and more so matter pertains to agricultural land and in revenue record, which is document showing prima facie possession, defendants-respondents' name was shown, and unless evidence showing otherwise is produced, it cannot be said that finding recorded by Court below in respect to prima facie case is incorrect or perverse.
6. No other point has been argued.
7. The appeal lacks merits. Dismissed at the stage of hearing under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C.
Order Date :- 22.2.2018 PS