Court No. - 36
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9681 of 2018 Petitioner :- Sanjay And Another Respondent :- Praveen Kumar And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Komal Mehrotra
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
In a suit seeking relief of mandatory injunction, both the courts below have rejected the temporary injunction application with the categorical finding that the suit cannot be allowed to proceed in view of the issuance of notification under Section (4)(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act' 1953 on 27.10.2017.
The fact that the village has underwent consolidation and the proceeding for preparation of CH form No. 5 is under way is not disputed.
Only submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the objections under Section 9 of the Act' 1953 filed by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the said objections can be entertained only before preparation of CH form No. 5 and, hence, the civil court has erred in refusing to grant temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners, in as much as, the petitioners are remedyless as on date.
This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners does not find merit. For the relief sought in the plaint, of mandatory injunction, no temporary injunction can be granted as such a relief could only be granted after evidence of the parties.
However, in view of the admitted fact that the village underwent consolidation, the instant suit cannot proceed.
No infirmity can be attached to the order impugned.
The present petition is found devoid of merits and hence dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.1.2019 Himanshu