Honble MITAL, CJ. - After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that interest of justice demands that the matter should be sent back to the trial court for fresh decision on the application for injunction filed by the plaintiff- respondent and the application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner-Smt. Draupadi without being influenced by the orders dated 6.1.1984 and 9.1.1984 because these orders were passed at a time when Smt.Draupadi was not party to the proceedings and only Urban Improvement Trust (for short UIT) was party to the suit and they had hardly any interest in the dispute when these orders were passed because much earlier to that UIT had sold the land in dispute to Smt.Draupadi on 4th of March,1983.

(2). It is not disputed that on 4th of March,1983, the UIT sold to Smt.Draupadi-petitioner,a strip of land sandwiched between the residential house of SmtDraupadi and the public road and from this road,Smt.Draupadi had access to her house through this land only.

(3). Narayan, who is respondent in this revision, filed two suits. The first suit was filed against the UIT to claim ownership of the strip of land which

Click Here to Read the rest of this document