^I^H.COyR'r-QFGHNATTOQARHI.ffr.BH-^PyB" ;W.P..127:No.5NS'ofieoil^.'-i.;'.'^ Petitibner Defendanf ResRQStcSents PIaihtjf^ :'Sul<hia^-Sin)ia,^Ni:f.SjtaFam'i.:Sinh8^ Caste-Ka{arl;-,'.;RA3i'l^-~^arcl::i':; ThethwarpaiFa,', :-:,•':],;•:•:,..:.'Ddngai^arh,' Tah.DongaF|arh, Oistt.RajnandgaQn ,(C:G.)..^;^,',l,.'':^.lj:^ Versu^i -i^;i'\''^^i^ .;:..-1,:.: ::;-..: i'/' "1..."' ••...• •:i.-i:':.'. ••.•-.• • t' ^ 1. Smt.?<4an^ra^a 0eyl, W/GJ Shn Sdlv '..''Kumar ^.^}l^}thra,.'-|^Ca^@-Braffl^ ^a9ed.^abbu|;{'-,6&1'^earsl,,:'1^^:]^^ •^^,^|^e|ll^rpira,^iDi>n9g^^ Tatl^£)pny9i|9arh,G)istt.Rs|riandgaon •{C.p.):.;'-;1-::^-;'.;'l:;;,,^^ 2. State of|Cj.G. Threugh I Coltector, Rajriandg^oh, Distt.RaJnahdgaon ^C.G.)|-;.'|'^:7i:.,^,;.,.i^^ ''|:\':: .:•;, .:i.;:^:-:;:;;,'/;',';,J, (P€tltionunder^icle227Qf|iieGGoNitytionjofiR(iia) -Presenf:- ,;: ••„••.:'.:. •''.:i^;j-^'l:.'\^:l;;'^ ';:l^rB.P.©upta,:oGU{l^!'^forthe^p6{|iQ|@r.;fi ;^r.V.R,Tiwan,,'GOUFi|eltfdrrispin|eritN^:'l ^r,R.KJha^6y.<lc||Idj|cai|||||||^||||^ v ^ ^^ w 2. :'i::y;:(Si^-1on^i^r;:il||?SNIF^^: :©I^S-^I^El.i^^^l:,';:l^.;:r'^ ;^(26-11-20t());:l'l:,';l;;'; 1/'-^^ BythsspetitionunderArticie227Gfth©€onstitutiooofindJa,petlt{onerhas chaSlenged legaiitY and propriety oftt?ieorderdated|10,9.2009 passed by AdditionaS Oistrict Judge, Camp Court, Dongai^arh,! |n iVSisc.Ciwi Appeal No.Qt72009, whereby by reverstngtheofderciated 24.3.2009 passedtsy Givli Judge Class-SI, Dongargarb, in Civii SuJti<N|o,44-A/09 A^ District Judge has granted InjunGtion uhder0rder39 Ryie 1 and 2ofthe CPC against,.petitioner.l;. ! •.; /'.^'\i" .„ ^. .•, i.'' . l' '.; V;/.;?l."1,;-''1 Grder is chalSenged that by ptassing the oRier jmpugned Ipwer appeiiate Court has TOmmittedj iJSegatfty anci h^s^^^^^^^^^ lprescrSbed:;and':'^jthput--.any:;.l^asj^filQ^;-,::ap^jl^e;,,:'Coy^ !njynction.:agatnsfc:'p6tfttoReNFlghtfuS^bwnerGfitiie^ro^rty|^ -f^~- AU^U. '-:2-—.i".'.!, As per ctocuments, order impugned; and additionai documents filed on behaif of respondent No.1, present petltioner is owner and Qccupier of ktlasra No.326/2 and respondent Noj.1 is ownerand occup No.326/1. As per case of responyent No.1. there was 7 fe^ land between lands of petltloner and respondent No.1 whlch has been iHegaily encroached by petitloner. Petitioner has started constryction over encroached area sffecting easementary i right and other rigbts of respondent No.1. On the afore^id basis, su^^ fo^ easementaryrightandpermanenttnj^nct{onjhasbe|n^^fi No. 1 In which she has elaimed ternpQrary iryunction under Qraer 39 Rute 1^3nd2ofth©:C:PC..By..fiisngTepEy(p|esent^etition6rhas:d^^ allegation and has aileged that iands of petitionerjand i^ponde^ were adjolning and there ss no any land between iands of petstioner and respondent No.1, He has not eneroached the Gpv^mment Sand or land of respondent NoJ or has^ not startedicpnstriictiqnpyerthe^^^ owned by hlm. After heanng th|jappi^^ in|unctjon, Givii judgejCjass-tl, Dongargarh ha8dis issed^ flledonbehaSf6frespbndentN6.1,|Ahich^ appeilate Court and by the orcteF Impugneci Sower appell^te Court has grantsd tsmporary snjunctlon under Ordsr 39 Ruje 1 i and 2 of the CPC. i have heard learned counsei for the parties and perused petition, order impugned/copyofpiant,coplesofcrtherdGcuments,i^pi^^^^^^^ documents fiied on behaif of responeient Np.1 and retum of respondent NQ.1. Learned counsei fdr petjttoner submlisthatpreserrtrespoRdentNo.1^ acquired title over the property 6n the basis of saS^ de^^ dated23.11.84 In which If has been spe??ifiGally mentipned that |n w^ petitioner is situated, but mapi fiied on behaiif (^ the respondent NoJ/ptaintifT along wlth ^er plaint as SG^^ situatlc^ and houss of pditloner has beenshown in^^^ of respondent No.1 which is c^ executed by; Suraj INarayan in fevour ©fpre^ Learned counseifurthQrsubmNthafrevenueprece^ltigs^w^ .decided,.between the|.p8rttes,:1an^,wa@^marcateg ^iRl:vvhich,it^^ , found thatthere is noany3and"orT)azullarid^^^ and respondent No.1, but lowerappetiateOourthasgranted sryu^ 6. 8. - <2> ^ <X) the basis of photographs and wlthout considering the documentary evldence fi!ed by respondent No.1 ianjd also by petitioner, thereby caused fsiiure of justice which cannot be repaired by an ordinary remedy provided bylaw. ' • . .;' •1'. ; . ;; ! - • '. '. On the other hand, iearned counssi for respondent No.1 opposes the petjtion and submits that after consldering the documents flSed on behalf of respondent No.1 & the petitjoner and eonsidering the demarcatlon report, iower appelSate Court has| granted IrijunctJoR in tavour of respondent No.1. While granting injunction by aSSowing theappeai, the lower appellate Court has not exceedjsd the jurisdsctlon vested on it. The iower appejSate Court has not committed any iSiegaiity warrantlng any interference in terms of Article r?ft?T of the CoRstitutson pf indla. Learned cbunsei further submits that sithough iower appeliate Court has not mentioned the documents whlch it ha^ considered 1!or granting jnjunction, therefore, records of the Courte beto^ bs caifed fbr ©rr^ppndent No.1 be permitted to fiie additionaS documents. Copy of nszui maJntenanGe khasra ffled on behaSf of respondent No,1 prima facie reveai some open p!ace between piot No.326/1 and plot Np.326/2, but sale deed executed by Suraj Narayan In favour of respondent No.1 reveals that house of petitioner is sltuated in westsideof the land soid by Suraj Narayah whteh showsthat there was RO open iand between house of petitioner and respondent |No.1 in west side. Respondent ?\lo.1/pi3lntjff has fjled suit and has sttached msp as Scheduie A whlch shows that land/house ot petltioner is sltuated towards south side of house of plamtiff/respondent No.1. Thls Is contrary to sale deed by whlch respondent No.1 has acquired titie over the property. Order jmpugned, especialiy para 18 reveats that on the basis of photographs filed by respondent No.1, the Addltional District Judge, Camp Court; Dongargarh has arrlved at a findlng that there was iand/open piace betwesn the lands ofthe petitioner and respondent No.1. Even as per undertaking and admission ofthe petitioRer, he has not left 2 feet width land from boundary of rsspondent No.1. It also reveais that by msklng construction, the petitioner has closed ventllator of his houseand 'nouse of respondent No.1 adjoining to him. The iower appeiiate Court has further observed that petitioner by encroachsng the iand which was used 3!3SJi8SS^Sl8Sliltj^tltlilSl3'l <^ '%- vww ^-^ - by respondent No.1 M cleaning of her liouse ha^^^d^ everyiiReilhood ofinfnngement ofea^meNary nght ofres^nclentNo.1. Orderpassed bytheAdditionai Di^tri(^JudgecJearlyreveaisspeculation, hypo^esisaRd presumption, contrar^to^beidoc^ respondent No.1, even same is contirary to map attaehed wlth the p!atnt as-ScheduleA. ':.. '.:.^: 11''-'1:'•':;'•'^ , ..'••^1, •': ;''1/'..1'.:1;'..'<\'1;:-''' •1- 9. Af the time of grahting injuncrti^ 0^1igatlon to protect the natyre Of {property titi fjnat conc|usion and to permit the person fbreryoymentof^ ^:l-;.':^.-l^.:^:'-;ll:l;'l;'^..;1'-^^ Gourt wasrequlred ahd uhderGbS(ga);ibrftojensure|th^ Court shouid riot deprivethe rjght|6f|enjoyment c?f^pp^^^ any lawfui excuse. At the-time pf grant of' Jnjunction, the Gburts slre uncier obligatibn to consider ths seriOusness or prima facie case in fayour of the person/pSaintlff, quesllonsof irreparabie iossandbaiance ofcGnvenSenGe, but in the present case, lower appeiiate Gourt has not corissejered the aforesald questlons, even iower appeliate Court Kas not eonsidered the documents fiied on Ssehaif of respondent No.iypiaihtiff^^w^^^ contrarytoeaGhotheFandtherebyoornmJttedgrGssijiegaSity. 10/ JurisdlGtion ofthe High Gourt underjArt^^^ cases j^heretherelsti suffer such an lr j5arab}e Soss w^ remedy provlded by Saw. MG^ever, power underOT ypon the High Gourt to keep the inferior Courts and Tribunals withih the ilmlts ofthelr authorityand thatthey do notcrossfthe Hmlts, ensunng^^ performance ofduties by such Courts and Tribunais|in aecordance with law conferring powers wlthin the ambit of the enactments creating such CourtsandTribunals.Oniywrpngdec§sjonsmayRoti3eagroun^fo^ exercise ofjurisdkrtion ynderthls artlcte uniess the^^ grave dereik^ion ofduty and flagrant abuse of powerj by thesubordinate CourtsandTribunaisresyltinglngraveinjuslicetoanyparty. 11. After appreciating th^ dpcuments, pleadings and affidaYits, the tnal Court has dismfesed the appiicattpn for injunetion fljed on fcfehaif of resppndent No.1, but whiieexeteislngthe8ppeSiatejurisdiction,iQwerappel^^^^ has granted tempbrary injunction in favour ofj responderrt^^^^^^^^^^^^N substantiaiiy on the, basls of photographs whtohi were agalr^ liitB t!ia!Nfc. "'%. i-i';l%im"'. ^,;| :^ -.i ^fe,,...-1'' f<\^: .-^ B/- - s~i~:lt';: .:':t •-' •i.';;/"^.'/.l.;'':. ::.:-;;'"-."':'';^",':'.'"'.i\.: ?'.''.::. ,'.•'. ••'': •''••'•.•..^../•;:;'1''..'^ documents and other tacts and tiiereby co^mitte^ causedfaiiyreofjustlce.Bypas3iRgsuch;or^ crosslt iimlts, therefore,such ord^reannfrtfoe^ in exercise ofjurisdictipn under^rtiQie227|Ofthe0oRst§tutK^ l:necessary.:,.'! .!1 ,. ^. ;:11'1-, ••-';, 1'. .,:'^^'..;..:1 :/^1;. .1 ^.:..-. •';:' • '1; •, 'i-' •"..' ,": r 12. Consequentjy, the petitlon is sllowed. Order datefcS 10.9.200^ is hereby set aside. However,^^ ^ petitsoner and respondent Nb.1 ^re fadjoining to e^ch other and there^i^ serious dispute reiating to thesrjrights whieh can only be^ appointmeRt of a Gommissloner jbyjsntervention (^ both the ppraes are diredecij tey ^ .Jl^;.:^;'ll::;!.f'•'.-,.4^ Gonstruetion and house for three months frorn today. Meanwhile, respondent NoJ shaii file appilcstion under Qrder|26 Rule &jof^ for Socai investigattOR and the Cc^rt atter^^^p^^ ;decide\the.;-lappliGatlonl:as'l.eariy;|a^l;^possibS&l8:n^ ;demarcation^Teport^fQr.xSecjdiig^^e|;iRjun<|iQ^ 'tie.ba^is^6f:s{x;h.,ripor^and,Asr:iTt^eri3i,|^ injunctjbn ^pplscatipn gfresh as @ai?y as^^p stipuiatedtimej.e.tthreemonthsfrortito^ ^1;'!^1;:'.':^'-^1--^-;.^'-'^!^ dispute, triai Court shail decide suit as early asi^sibie^^^^^^^^^^R .^;;:';-\^r.;v-: --•:^;.''.1^;/^ dlrected tb r&main present anti c^ No order as to cdsts^ Sd/- TJ*.Sharma Judge