Balmukund Vishwakarma vs Satish Naydu @ Satyanaran Naydu
2022 Latest Caselaw 2076 MP

                                                           1
                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                                                         BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
                                               ON THE 15th OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                                            MISC. PETITION No. 619 of 2022

                               Between:-
                               BALMUKUND VISHWAKARMA, S/O CHHIDAMILAL
                               VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
                               OCCUPATION: NIL, R/O DR. BHATNAGAR KE
                               PEECHE    SHEETLAMAI     WARD,   THANA
                               GHAMAPUR, DISTRICT JABALPUR

                                                                                         .....PETITIONER
                               (BY SHRI RAKESH SAGAR, ADVOCATE)

                               AND

                      1.       SATISH NAYDU @ SATYANARAN NAYDU S/O SHRI
                               P.N. NAYDU OCCUPATION: NIL;

                      2.       SMT SUSHILA NAYDU W/O SHRI SATISH NAYDU,
                               AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL,

                      3.       GOLDY NAYDU S/O SATISH NAYDU URF
                               SATYANARAYAN NAYDU , AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
                               OCCUPATION: NIL,

                      4.       ABHI   NAYDU    S/O SATISH  NAYDU    URF
                               SATYANARAYAN NAYDU, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
                               OCCUPATION: NIL,
                               ALL R/O SECOND FLOOR HOUSE, BADKUL KE
                               TURN WALI GALI, JAIN MANDIR KE SAMNE,
                               POLICE QUARTER KE PECHE, DESI SHARAB
                               DUKAN KE BAJU SE, THANA -GARHA, MEDICAL
                               ROAD, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS


                            This miscellaneous petition has come up for hearing on admission on this
                      day, the court passed the following:
                                                             ORDER

Petitioner has filed this petition challenging order dated 22.12.2021 by which Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal of petitioner. Petitioner is plaintiff before the trial Court who had filed the suit for declaration of title on basis of adverse possession. In said suit, he had filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. for grant of temporary injunction. Application for temporary Signature SAN Not injunction was rejected by order dated 09.04.2021 and thereafter appeal preferred Verified

Digitally signed by by petitioner was also dismissed. SUNIL KUMAR PATEL Date: 2022.02.16 12:31:34 IST

Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that Court below had committed an error of law in holding the petitioner as encroacher. It is submitted that decree was passed in favour of Late Indrakumar in year 1995, thereafter, said decree holder never executed the decree nor asked for any rent and had sold the property.

Petitioner is in peaceful possession of property in question, therefore, trial Court ought to have allowed application of petitioner for grant of temporary injunction.

Heard the counsel for petitioner.

Trial Court as well as Appellate Court has held that petitioner is encroacher. He has not complied with the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. There is already a decree of eviction against the petitioner. In these circumstances, trial Court as well as Appellate Court has dismissed his application.

This Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India will not interfere on question of facts and on merits of the case. Trial Court as well as Appellate Court had acted within its jurisdiction. No error of jurisdiction is found in the order passed by the Courts below. Considering the same, this miscellaneous petition is dismissed.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE sp/-

Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

Digitally signed by
SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Date: 2022.02.16
12:31:34 IST