1. A civil suit came to be filed by the appellant before the District Judge, Leh seeking declaration to the effect that the plaintiff and the defendants are co-sharers, co-sharers and in joint possession of land comprising in Khasra No. 698, 701, 1184, 1185, 1408, Khewat No. 111 situated at Skurbucan, Leh. Further declaration was sought that the appellant is owner in possession of land measuring 1 Kanal 4 Marlas, comprising in Khewat No. 111, Khasra No. 1410 situate at Skurbuchan, Leh on account of adverse possession claiming against the respondents for over 30 years.

2. Alongwith the suit an application for temporary injunction restraining defendant/ respondent No.1 from interfering with the peaceful possession of land under Khewat No. 111, Khasra No. 1410 measuring 1 Kanal 4 Marlas was filed.

3. The defendants in their written statement denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit land as a co-sharer on the ground that he was not the son of Late Tundup Namgial. They have also denied the plaintiffs possession over the suit land as claimed by him.

4. The application for seeking temporary injunction against the defendants/ respondents came to be decided by the learned District Judge, Leh on 11-8-2006. The learned District Judge did not find the petitioner entitled to the relief of injunction on the ground that there was no prima facie case in his favour, except for the averments made by him in the plaint. The plaintiff/ petitioner claimed this land as in adverse possession against the defendants.

5. It is important to mention that the application for temporary injunction was confined only to Khasra No. 1410 measuring 1 Kanal 4 Marlas. The said application came to be dismissed.

6. During the pendency of the suit the defendants/ respondents filed an application against the plaintiff/petitioner seeking a direction against the plaintiff/ petitioner not to interfere with the peaceful possession over the land measuring 1 Kanal 4 Marlas comprising in Khasra No. 1410.

7. The said application was allowed by the learned District Judge in which he restrained the petitioner/ plaintiff permanently from causing any type of interference in the land measuring 1 Kanal 4 Marlas comprised in Survey No. 1410 situated in village Skarbuchan, Leh in cultivating possession of defendant/ respondent No.1 till final disposal of the suit. It was also directed that the defendant shall not change the nature of the suit property till the final disposal of the suit. It is this order of the District Judge, Leh which is subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

8. Mr. Raina, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the application filed by the defendants/ respondents before the trial Court under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 Code of Civil Procedure was not maintainable for the following reasons:

(i) That under Order 39 Rule-1 (a) & (b) CPC the power to grant injunction on an application filed by a party in the suit is restricted only for preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal of the property; There is no power vested with the trial Court to order stay of dis-possession of the defendant by the plaintiff in a suit filed by the plaintiff. In other words Mr. Raina states that no application for seeking stay of dis-possession by the defendants can be filed under Order 39 Rule 1 (a) (b) (c) of Code of Civil Procedure.

(ii) The second ground is that assuming but not admitting that there is power to grant injunction even then the same cannot be done on the application filed by the defendant as he cannot claim any right on the cause of action of the plaintiff.

9. In support of his arguments Mr. Raina, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the cases (i) Suganda Bai Vs Sulu Bai and others, AIR 1975 Karnataka 135; and (ii) Dr/ Ashis Ranjan Das Vs Rajendra Nath Mullick, AIR 1982 Cal 529

10. On the other hand Mr. L.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that the Court has the power to grant injunction to the defendant in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document