“In view of the aforesaid reasoning, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.” Said Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma of the Uttarakhand High Court in the matter of Puran Lal Bhanu alias Puran v. Ram Singh and Another [Writ Petition (M/S) No. 843 of 2021]
This order was passed under the facts that the petitioner before this Court, claiming to be the owner of the land by virtue of the sale deeds executed in his favour on May 28, 1996, and December 31, 1997. If the sale deeds are considered, the property that has been disclosed to him is admittedly shown to be khasra No. 1377/1, with an area of 0.081 hectares, located in village mauja Badamawala (West Hope Town) pargana Pachhwadoon, District Dehradun, and the property covered in the second sale deed is yet again a part of the property that was lying in khasra No.1377/1.The suit accompanied with it an application, under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC.
The learned counsel for the petitioner had placed his arguments from the following perspectives:- First and foremost, the suit was unmaintainable. His reasoning is that because the property in question has been recorded in the revenue records as a revenue land, the suit would be barred by the provisions of Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.
Second, the learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that there is a dispute over the property’s boundaries. In that regard, if the plaintiff’s property is taken into account exclusively, it describes the boundary of the property, which was the subject matter of the suit, and it goes without saying that the injunction granted to the plaintiffs/respondents by the impugned orders would obviously relate to the property, which is the subject matter of the suit itself, the boundary of which has been described.
Even if it is assumed for a moment that there may be a case, it still necessitates a factual appraisal of evidence, which must be decided by formulation of an issue and not at the stage of granting an injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC.
The third argument advanced by the petitioner’s learned counsel is that there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents.
The court held that, However, Mr Sachhar is correct in arguing that unless and until a party to the suit establishes a case of irreparable loss or damage, the court should not allow the nature of the property to be changed, which includes alienation or transfer of the property, which may result in loss or damage being caused to the party who ultimately succeeds and may further lead to multiplicity. In the instant case, no such case of irreparable loss is made out, with the respondent arguing that because the legal proceedings are likely to take a long time, he should be allowed to put the scheduled property to better use. In the event that the appellant’s claim is ultimately found to be without merit, the respondent may always seek damages or, in an appropriate case, the court may award damages for the loss suffered, if any. We believe that both the lower appellate court and the High Court erred in making the impugned orders because the facts of this case do not establish any extraordinary ground for allowing the respondent to put up construction and alienate the same. The aforementioned orders are reversed, and the trial court’s order is reinstated.
