Daroga Sah And ANR v. Devnath Sah And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2517 of 2016 In MA 483 of 2014 ====================================================== Daroga Sah & Anr .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

Devnath Sah & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajeet Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 13-07-2016 Heard learned counsel, Mr. Ajeet Singh, for the petitioners.

Perused the order dated 24.06.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Siwan in Misc. Appeal No. 18 of 2011 whereby the learned appellate court has dismissed miscellaneous appeal and thereby confirmed the order dated 05.08.2011 passed by the trial court in Title Suit No.88 of 2011 rejecting the injunction application.

It appears that the suit was filed by the plaintiffspetitioners for declaration of title and confirmation of possession. In the suit, a prayer has already been made for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from forcefully dispossessing the petitioners and selling the suit property. The trial court dismissed the injunction application. The petitioners then filed

Patna High Court CWJC No.2517 of 2016 (3) dt.13-07-2016 2/2 M.A.No. 18 of 2011. The learned appellate court by the impugned order held that the plaintiffs have got no prima facie as to whether balance of convenience is in their favour. The court below has also held that both the parties are claiming possession over the suit property and accordingly dismissed the miscellaneous appeal. In view of the above fact that both the courts below have rejected the injunction prayed by the petitioners, there is no question of interfering with the impugned order in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution arises as this court is not exercising any appellate jurisdiction and for the purpose of supervising the impugned order this court cannot take another view in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Thus, this writ application is dismissed.

(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) singh/- U