9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation filed by the respondent against the petitioner herein in a suit was disposed of by the trial Court with the direction that the respondent is temporarily restrained from causing the obstruction in the cultivation of suit property till the disposal of main suit. The court also restrained respondent herein from creating third party interest or change the nature of the suit property for the purposes other than cultivation. The appeal preferred by the respondent against the said order was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide order dated 11.07.2023. 2. The petitioner shall be referred as defendant and the respondent as plaintiff for the purposes of discussion in the petition in hand. 3. The plaintiff filed a suit with the averments that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so argued by the defendant. The pleading regarding the defendant having alienated his share in the property is also vague assertion of the plaintiff in the suit. 6. Mr. Lone Altaf, learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the petition is not maintainable as the concurrent findings have been recorded by both the courts and require no interference by this Court. The counsel has submitted that both the trial Courts have gone through the facts of the case extensively before passing the impugned order. He has also referred to the earlier suit filed by the defendant. 7. The petitioner-defendant has taken the Court through the two revenue reports in order to plead that both the courts erred in depending upon one of the reports while ign ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty in question. The court is not in agreement with this argument raised by the defendant herein. This court is not to hold as to how the trial Court should have proceeded in the matter though the different revenue reports were before the trial Court for perusal. As stated above, the defendant had filed suit earlier before the Munsiff Court, Kangan and that suit was withdrawn. The order passed by the Munsiff Court on 23.06.2021 in case titled Mohd. Rafiq Rather Vs. Sara Bano and others makes out that the defendant herein had also filed suit relief of possession of the land which was subject matter of the suit. Of course, the liberty is granted to the defendant to institute the suit afresh if the cause survives in favour of the petitioner. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of law. In other words, it is a patent error which can be corrected by certiorari but not a mere wrong decision'.
13. The court is not convinced that the orders passed by the Courts below require any interference of sort in the facts and circumstances of the case.
14. The learned trial Court has taken care of the controversy involved and issues which require determination in the suit in hand and also protected the rights of the parties. The appellate Court has confirmed the order of the trial Court with valid reasons.
15. In the light of above discussion, the Court finds no reason to set aside the impugned order and allow the present petition. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
