ORDER
Gurusharan Sharma, J.
1. The plaintiff. Smt. Uma Sharan filed Title Suit No. 55 of 1995, against the defendants, Murlidhar Shukla, Laljee Prasad and Parmeshwar Dutta Jha for declaration of title acquired by adverse possession over 10 decimals land, bearing plot No. 314 and also sought for declaration that sale deeds dated 11.4.1994 and 5.5.1994 executed by defendant No. 3 in favour of defendant no. 1 in respect of suit land was void.
2. After seven years, on 18.6.2002, the plaintiff filed a petition for interim injunction against the defendants and two supplementary petitions dated 14.8.2002 and 14.11.2002 thereto for restraining them from raising constructions over the suit land. In their rejoinder dated 8.7.2002 and supplementary rejoinder dated 23.11.2002 the defendants stated that actually the plaintiff has purchased 48-1/4 decimals land of plot No. 303, out of total 10.75 acres and she had neither title nor possession over the suit land, bearing plot No. 314. The said plot No. 314, having total area of 18 decimals belonged to the defendant No. 3, who transferred parts thereof to defendants 1 and 2 and also to one Samudri Devi, who constructed pacca boundary wall along with a room on her land about seven years ago. The aforesaid part of plot No. 303 purchased by the plaintiff was far away from plot No. 314. The plaintiff has also filed Title Suit No. 1 of 1995 against Smt. Samudri Devi and others, which is pending.
3. The trial Court rejected the plaintiff’s petition for interim injunction on 10.12.2002 on the ground that she was claiming her title by adverse possession, whereas defendants 1 and 2 claimed their interest on the basis of registered sale deed executed by the defendant No. 3. Hence, she has no prima-facie case and the balance of convenience was also in favour of the defendants and in case temporary injunction was not granted, there was no irreparable injury to her.
4. The plaintiff preferred Misc. Appeal No. 6 of 2002 against the said order, which has also been rejected by impugned order dated 29.3.2003. Learned District Judge, Palamau in the impugned order observed that possession of parties cannot be decided at the stage of considering prayer for interim injunction, without examination of the witnesses. Further even if construction is made on the suit land, after the plaintiff succeeds in the suit, it can be removed and/or the plaintiff can be compensated in terms of money.
5. In such circumstance, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. However, it is made clear that constructions, if any, made by the parties over the suit land during the pendency of the suit, it can be removed and/or the plaintiff can be compensated in terms of money.
5. In such circumstance, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. However, it is made clear that constructions, if any, made by the parties over the suit land during the pendency of the suit, shall be subject to the result of the suit and without any claim of equity. This Revision application disposed of accordingly.