IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.3824 of 2011
Dr. Anil Kumar Singh @ Anil Kumar Singh .... Petitioner
Versus
Mrs. Sarita Sinha & Ors. ...Respondents
Coram : The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Nath Tiwari
For the Petitioner : Mrs.Vandana Singh, Advocate
For the State : MR. S. Kumar, J.C. to G.A.
-----
2/19.09.2011
In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order
dated 18.6.2011 passed by learned Sub-Judge-II, Bokaro in Title Suit
no.08/2007, whereby learned court below has disposed of the application filed
by the defendants directing the parties to maintain status-quo on the clear
undertaking of the plaintiffs that neither they have made any construction nor
they have any intention to make construction over the suit land during pendency
of the suit.
The said order of learned court below has been assailed only on the
ground that learned court below has passed the said decision by considering
three conditions required for granting temporary injunction I.e. prima facie case,
balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned
order. I find that during pendency of the suit, the defendants filed an application
stating that the plaintiffs are making construction over the suit land and, as such,
they are liable to be restrained from changing the nature and topography of the
suit, which may ultimately make the situation irreversible.
The plaintiffs filed reply stating that they have neither made any
construction over the suit land nor they have any intention to raise construction
over the same during pendency of the suit.
In view of the said undertaking of the plaintiffs, learned court below
disposed of the defendants’ petition putting its seal on the said undertaking of
the plaintiffs and directing the parties to maintain status-quo. Since there was no
controversy between the parties on construction during pendency of the suit and
the plaintiffs themselves came forward with clear statement that they have no
intention to make any construction over the suit land, there was no occasion for
learned court below to go into further detail and record its finding on any other
point of fact or law.
I, therefore, find no arbitrariness or illegality in the impugned order of
learned court below warranting any interference with the said order dated
18.6.2011.
This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
( Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.)
s.b.