A227/7060/2025 of JAGAT RAM Vs NARENDRA KUMAR AND 4 OTHERS on 10 December 2025

1. Heard Shri Pt. Devesh Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Satendra Kumar Tiwar, Advocate holding brief of Shri Bhanu Pratap Singhbisen, the learned counsel for the Caveator- Narendra Kumar - the respondent No.1.

2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 17.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No.1, Bahraich in Regular Suit No.1136 of 2018 whereby the petitioner's application for temporary injunction was rejected. The petitioner had challenged the aforesaid order by filing Misc. Civil Appeal No.31 of 2024, which has been dismissed by means of a judgment and order dated 01.11.2025 passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Bahraich and the petitioner has challenged the validity of the appellate order also.

3. The Civil Judge has recorded in the impugned order dated 17.10.2024 that the petitioner has not mentioned any boundaries of the property in dispute and not annexed any site plan as a part of the plaint. The petitioner had not filed any documentary evidence to establish that the lands bearing Gata Nos.197 and 199 have been demarcated from which the boundaries of aforesaid gatas may be clear. There is a boundary dispute between the parties. The petitioner has failed to establish his prima facie case and, accordingly, no discussion is required on balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury.

4. The appellate court has affirmed the order of the trial Court after recording that the petitioner has not filed any objection against the inspection report and site plan submitted by Amin. There is land of Gram Sabha land between lands of plaintiffs and the defendants, which is lying vacant. It appears that the suit has been filed with the intention of encroaching upon the land of Gaon Sabha. A survey commission report was obtained at the appellate stage, the report whereof shows that there is some open land between the lands bearing Gata Nos.197 and 196. A piece of land bearing Gata Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pt. Devesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bhanu Pratap Singhbisen Jagat Ram .....Petitioner(s) Narendra Kumar And 4 Others .....Respondent(s)

No.196 (kha) has been carved out from the land bearing Gata No.196 and construction is being raised on land bearing Gata No.196 (Kha) which belongs to the defendants. Therefore, the trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the temporary injunction application.

5. Having gone through the order of the trial Court and that of the appellate Court is of the considered view that both the courts below have exercised their discretion while deciding the temporary injunction application after a proper scrutiny of the entire relevant material available on record and the orders are well reasoned order, which cannot be said to be suffering from any such error as warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. The petition lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed.

7. Before parting with the case, it is observed that as the suit was filed in the year 2018 and it appears that no substantial progress has been achieved in the suit, a direction is issued to the learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No.1, Bahraich to proceed with Regular Suit No.1136 of 2018 expeditiously in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties and by fixing dates at short intervals. December 10, 2025 -Amit K- A227 No. 7060 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench