IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.685 of 2005 Prem Chand Thakur, son of Late Shyam Lal Thakur, Resident of Village Adampur, Police Station Giriyak, District-Nalanda ……….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Kailly Devi, W/o Ram Swaroop Thakur, Resident of Village and P.O. Konandpur, Police Station Pakari Barawan, District-Nalanda 3. Urmilla Devi, W/o Bhagwat Narayan Prasad, Resident of Village Satnag, P.O. and Police Station Chandi, District- Nalanda, Both respondent nos. 2 and 3, Hal Mokam at P.O. Adampur, Police Station Giriyak, District-Nalanda 4. Vindeshwar Thakur, son of Late Rachhey Thakur 5. Dilip Thakur, son of Late Rachhey Thakur, both, respondent nos. 4 and 5 are resident of Adampur, Police Station Giriyak, District-Nalanda 6. Manoj Kumar, son of Late Shyamlal Sharma 7. Pragash Thakur, son of Late Rachhey Thakur, 8. Rajo Sharma, son of Ramlal Sharma, respondent nos. 6 to 8 are resident of Village Adampur, Police Station Giriyak, District-Nalanda….. Proforma Respondent IInd set. ………………… Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Bishwa Nath Upadhyay, Advocate For the State : - Mr. R.K.Chandram, J.C. to G.P.-VIII ----------- 9. 19.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. No one appears for the private respondent. The petitioner has come to this Court in its writ jurisdiction against the order dated 15.7.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Nalanda in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 04 of 2002/01 of 2 2004 arising out of order dated 29.1.2002 of Subordinate Judge-I, Biharsharif in T.S. No. 69/2000 by which the injunction granted by the trial court in favour of the petitioner has been set aside by the appellate Court. The petitioner had also filed Civil Revision No. 1480/2004 against the said order which was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to seek other remedy available under the law. Accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate Court has seriously erred in setting aside the order of injunction dated 29.1.2002 granted by the Sub-Judge-I, Biharsharif in favour of the petitioner. It is submitted that rightly the prima facie case and the balance of convenience and irreparable loss had already been found in favour of the petitioner. It is stated that the learned Subordinate Judge has come to his conclusions on the basis of registered Takshimnama deed 23.11.1981. On a consideration of the impugned order, I find that the appellate court has referred to mutation case with respect to the suit land which was decided by the Circle 3 Officer in Case No. 133/1995-96 in favour of the petitioner against which the defendant-appellants before the appellate court had filed Misc. Case No. 1/1997-98 before the DCLR who had set aside the order of the Circle Officer and the said order was upheld up to the Commissioner and only thereafter the petitioner filed the declaratory suit for a direction of injunction concerning the suit lands. On the basis of the same the appellate court came to the conclusion that without going into specific finding with respect to the possession of the parties by deciding the same as a preliminary issue, no order of injunction could have been passed by the lower court in view of the mutation matter decided against the plaintiff-petitioner and in favour of defendant- respondents. On a consideration of the appellate order of learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Nalanda, I am of the view that the petitioner has failed to show any perversity or any glaring illegality in the said order. In the said circumstances, I do not find it a fit case to be interfered with in the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as a writ of 4 certiorari can only be issued in such cases on very narrow grounds. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. S. Pandey ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)