SBCMA No.2486/2007 Tikma Ram & Anr. Vs. Dhara Ram & Ors. 1 SBCMA No.2486/2007 Tikma Ram & Anr. Vs. Dhara Ram & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : - 9.1.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, for the appellant. Mr. Vijay Purohit] Mr. TC Sharma ], for the respondent. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. In the suit of the appellants-plaintiffs the application for grant of temporary injunction was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 8th May, 2007. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are in possession of the disputed land and there is a sale deed in their favour and on the part of the portion,the defendants are in possession by virtue of the permission granted to them. It is also submitted that part of the portion of the land was sold to one Joga Ram by oral agreement. When the defendants tried to encroach upon the part of the land, which is in possession of the SBCMA No.2486/2007 Tikma Ram & Anr. Vs. Dhara Ram & Ors. 2 plaintiffs, they filed the suit for injunction. The defendants tried to construct a wall and for that purpose dug the land also. In view of the above facts, the trial court committed error of law by not granting the relief to maintain the status-quo. I perused the reasons given by the trial court and also the record. It appears that in counter, the defendants set up a Patta and the trial court observed that the plaintiff did not produce the Patta of the land, whereas the defendants produced the Patta and the trial court also observed that from the site inspection report and looking to the Patta issued in the name of non-applicant no.1 Dhariya dated 11th April, 1985, it appears that the possession over the plot in question is of the defendants. Looking to the over all surrounding circumstances, i.e., the house of one of the non-applicant Magha Ram nearby, the trial court found that there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs. It appears that the trial court has considered all the facts of the case and, thereafter, refused to grant injunction. I do not find that there is any illegality in the order SBCMA No.2486/2007 Tikma Ram & Anr. Vs. Dhara Ram & Ors. 3 passed by the trial court. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-