IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.295 of 2009 Ganesh Upadhyay, son of Ram Bhagat Upadhyay, resident Of Village- Maranpur, Police Station- Narayanpur, District- Bhojpur, at present residing at Ambay Nagar, Housing Colony Road, Chandawa, Ara, Police Station- Ara Nawada, District-Bhojpur. …..(Plaintiff)..Appellant. Versus 1. Phul Kumari Devi, wife of Sri Nagendra Tiwary, resident of Village-Bishupur, Police Station- Shahpur (Karnamepur), District- Bhojpur, at present residing at Christian Colony, Chandawa More Ara, Police Station-Ara Nawada, District-Bhojpur. 2. Vidyawati Devi, wife of Brahmeshwar Mishra, resident of Village- Ramdatahin, Police Station-Shahpur (Karnamepur) District-Bhojpur, art present residing at Christian Colony Chandawa More Ara, Police Station-Ara Nawada, District- Bhojpur………..(Defendants Ist Set)Respondents- Ist Set. 3. Sri Shyam Nandan Upadhyay. 4. Sri Brij Nandan Upadhyay. Both sons of Late Pandit Laljee Upadhyay, resident of Village- Chandawa, Police Station- Ara Nawada, District- Bhojpur. ……………………(Defendants-2nd Set)Respondent 2nd Set. ----------- 5. 03. 11. 2010. Heard. This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 26. 03. 2009, passed by Sub Judge, Ist, Ara, in Title Suit No. 311/08, by which he has rejected the petition. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that Plot No. 1134 belongs to the plaintiff and Plot No. 1135 belongs to the defendant-respondent Ist set. In the said case, the plaintiff filed a petition for injunction for restraining the defendant from constructing the house and it is alleged that defendant started new construction in Plot No. 1134 and not in Plot No. 1135. However, there is 2 no specific measurement that Plot No. 1134 has been encroached neither in the pleading in the plaint nor petition under Order 39. 3. However, petition has been rejected on the ground that there is report of Pleader Commissioner that there is construction over suit property in some portion and as such defendants are in possession at the time. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has however, contended since the Pleader Commissioner report that construction has been made over the suit property and hence injunction ought to have been granted. 5. However, having regard to the fact that there is no specific mention either in the plaint or in the injunction petition nor Pleader Commissioner's report about area which has been encroached on the portion of Plot No. 1134 and hence allegation about encroachment of Plot No. 1134 is quite vague. 6. In such circumstance, I do not find any merit in this injunction petition and hence the injunction petition is hereby rejected. 7. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. m.p. ( Gopal Prasad, J.) 3