AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. S.L. Baranwal, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent nos. 4 and 5 are proforma respondents who have appeared through Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel. Insofar as, respondent no.3 is concerned, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have compromised the matter with respondent no.3 and accordingly, this writ petition shall stand dismissed against the respondent no.3.
The respondent-State is represented through Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, learned JC to SC (L&C).
The petitioners are aggrieved of the order dated 17.07.2008 passed in Misc. Appeal No.8 of 2007, by which order dated 23.06.2007 declining the application for injunction has been affirmed.
Title Suit No.84 of 2005 was instituted by the petitioners for declaration of their right, title and possession over schedule-A properties and for a declaration that ex-parte order dated 25.11.2003 and the decree dated 11.12.2003 are not binding on them. In the pending suit, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC which was dismissed by the trial Judge. In order dated 23.06.2007 the trial Judge has observed that the plaintiffs in support of their claim, that the schedule-A properties belonged to their grand-father which was inherited by their father, have not produced any documentary evidence. The appellate court has noticed that the defendants' right, title and interest over the suit land has been confirmed by a decree of the court. In Eviction Suit No.1 of 2003, the defendants have succeeded against the plaintiffs. Both the courts have found concurrently against the plaintiffs on the questions of balance of convenience and a possible irreparable loss to the plaintiffs.
In the above facts, I am not inclined to exercise powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
However, the suit which was instituted in the year 2005, in my opinion, needs to be disposed of expeditiously and accordingly, the trial Judge is directed to dispose of Title Suit No.84 of 2005, within one year.