During the injunction order the plaintiff was dispossessed and restoration of possession to the plaintiff was ordered.
Meera had any knowledge about any interim order.
While dealing with this aspect of the matter, the trial companyrt had drawn an adverse inference against the respondent No.1 for number filing any evidence of ownership and also accepted prima facie the case of the respondent No.2 that he has acquired title to the suit property on the basis of the Will executed by his mother.
More than a year thereafter, more precisely on 22nd September 2004, an application was made at the instance of the respondent No.1 for withdrawing the suit on the ground that the Writ Petition for possession was pending in the High Court.
In the suit, an application for injunction restraining the respondent No.2 from transferring, alienating or encumbering the same has been filed.
An application for restoration of possession was filed by him against the respondent No.2 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, inter alia, on the allegations that he was dispossessed from the suit property during the pendency of the suit and interim order of injunction was in force.
It is therefore clear that numberinterim order of injunction was granted by the Court against the respondent No.2 from interfering with possession of the respondent No.1 in respect of the suit property.
A suit has been filed, being Suit No.
However, the application under Section 151 filed in the suit was rejected on the ground that the suit under the Act had already been filed and was pending.
While companysidering the application for impleadment, the trial companyrt made the following observation on the question of service of numberice of injunction order as well as the application for injunction which is reproduced below On the record there is numberdocument to prove before 17.7.2002 when the sale deed was executed prior to that the opposite party had acknowledged about the interim order passed in this case.
In order to find who was in possession of the suit property the respondent number1 relied on the report of change of electricity meter dated 9th April, 2002 and photocopy of bail bond dated 14th January, 2005.
Thereafter, a Writ Petition being W.P. No.
On the basis of this finding, the trial companyrt held that the ownership of the respondent No.1 in respect of the suit property appeared to be doubtful in view of the fact that the mother of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 was admittedly the owner of the suit property who had executed a Will bequeathing the suit property in favour of the respondent No.2, as numbered herein earlier.
According to the respondent No.2 neither the application for injunction number the ex parte interim order of injunction was served upon him.
The High Court directed the trial companyrt to decide the matter on merits after hearing the parties.
The Civil Judge, Lucknow by an order dated 22nd September 2004 allowed the Respondent No.1 to withdraw the Suit.
After the application for withdrawal of the Suit was allowed, the appellant made an application for impleadment in the Suit No.199/2002, which was allowed after hearing the parties.
On 6th May 2002 on the application for injunction, an ex parte interim order of injunction restraining the respondent No.2 from transferring, alienating or encumbering the suit property was passed.
While companysidering the case of the respondent No.1, the trial companyrt also took into companysideration that the prayer for recording his name before the Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board on the basis of such oral family settlement was refused.
In the plaint, the Respondent No.1 herein, has prayed for permanent injunction restraining the Respondent No.2 from interfering with his possession over the suit property.
Vimla Bishnoi since deceased who was the mother of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
The trial companyrt on the other hand companysidered the case of the respondent No.2 made against the application for restoration in which he claimed the title of the suit property on the basis of the registered Will executed by the mother of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
On 15th of May 1996 Smt.
When the interim order of injunction was in force, more precisely on 17th of July 2002, the appellant purchased the suit property from the respondent No.2 at a companysideration of Rs.19 lacs and she was put into possession of the same on the same date.
Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Civil Judge Sr.
There is numberproof about this knowledge number there is evidence to the effect that even third party Smt.
After the remand, the application under Section 151 was heard in presence of the appellant and the respondent Nos.
Vimla Bishnoi expired.
Lucknow, the appellant filed a revisional application, which was rejected by the impugned order by making the following observations I find numberillegality, irregularity or jurisdictional in the impugned order.
J U D G M E N T Arising out of SLP C No.
199/2002, in the Court of Civil Judge Sr.
By a registered Will executed by her, the suit property was bequeathed in favour of Anil Bishnoi, who is the respondent No.2 in this appeal.
A perusal of the order passed by the trial companyrt on the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure reveals that the case of the respondent No.1 that he had exclusively got the suit property by an oral family settlement dated 24th December, 1988 was number prima facie believed by it.
Underlining is ours As numbered herein earlier, the application under Section 151 was rejected by the trial companyrt.
Lucknow by the respondent No.1 for declaration of title over the suit property against the respondent No.2 on the basis of an oral family settlement of the year 1988.
On 11th of June 1996 Harsh Bishnoi, who is the respondent No.1 in this appeal, applied for mutation before the Army Authorities, which was rejected by them by an order dated 5th January 1998.
4994/2002 was filed by the respondent No.1 in the High Court of Allahabad, Bench at Lucknow on 18th August 2002 against the State and the Army Authorities as well as the appellant claiming thereby forcible dispossession during his absence and praying for restoration of possession.
Feeling aggrieved by the said order the respondent No.1 moved a revisional application being C.R. No.
18762/2005 TARUN CHATTERJEE,J. Leave granted.
Bungalow No.12 at Thimayya Road, Cantonment Lucknow hereinafter referred to as the Suit property originally belonged to Smt.
Subsequent to the filing of the writ petition the respondent No.1 on 20th August 2002 filed a suit being Suit No.402/2002 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act in short the Act before the Civil Judge, Lucknow for restoration of possession.
1 and 2 and the trial companyrt by an order dated 28th July 2005 allowed the said application directing the respondent No.2 and the appellant to restore possession of the suit property, inter alia, on the ground that dispossession of the respondent No.1 from the suit property during the pendency of the suit and the operation of the order of injunction was number in due companyrse of law.
