IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Civil Petition No. 501 (M/S) of 2009 Ram Chander S/o Sri Billar R/o Village Buksora, Durgapur No. 1 Tehsil Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar ……………Petitioner. Versus Moti Lal S/o Ram Laxman Presently R/o Ward No. 2, Transit Camp. Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar. ………… Respondent Sri S.K. Chaudhary, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard Sri S.K. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner. (2) By means of this petition, moved under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.11.2008, passed by the trial court (Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rudrapur), in Suit No 23 of 2008, and order dated 18.03.2009, passed by District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 57 of 2008, whereby the order of temporary injunction granted by the trial court is affirmed. 2 (3) Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff / respondent instituted suit against the defendant (present petitioner) for permanent injunction in respect of land bearing Khatauni No. 00174, Khasra No. 330A, 331 and 332, situated in Village Buksora, Tehsil Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. The plaintiff filed application 6C with the suit for temporary injunction. The trial court heard the parties and perused the paper in which the plaintiff was shown as tenure holder in Class 1B. After considering said document, the trial court granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by said order, the defendant filed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 57 of 2008, before the District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, which was dismissed. (4) Learned counsel for the defendant / petitioner argued that it is the defendant who is in possession of land in suit and the trial court as well as the appellate court have erred in law in granting and affirming the temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. He drew attention of this Court to the agreement dated 16.05.1996, allegedly executed by the plaintiff. The said document appears to be an unregistered document and the same cannot be read in evidence. (5) In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the courts below have 3 committed no error of law in granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. There is no final finding of fact recorded by the trial court or by the appellate court in favour of the plaintiff. What has been observed is that as the plaintiff has shown prima facie case in his favour before the temporary injunction is granted. (6) In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the courts below. Therefore, the petition, moved under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is dismissed with the observation that the petitioner may show before the trial court at the time of the final hearing, if he is in the actual possession of the land in suit. (Stay Application No. 2555 of 2009 also stands dismissed). (Prafulla C. Pant., J.) 06.04.2009 NS