ORDER :

The writ petitioners herein challenge the order dated 26.09.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Bolangir in F.A.O. No.812 of 2012 confirming the order of injunction passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bolangir allowing the opposite party s prayer for interim injunction restraining the writ petitioners not to either come upon or create any disturbances over a portion of the suit land marked B in the sketch map annexed to the plaint.

2. The writ petitioners are the defendants and the opposite party is the plaintiff in Civil Suit No.17 of 2012 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bolangir.

3. The suit is for declaration of plaintiff s right and title over the entire suit land appertaining to Plot No.203374 measuring an area of Ac.0.058 of Mouza-Bijakhaman P.S.-Bolangir No.150 District-Bolangir with further prayer for eviction of the defendants from a portion of the suit land which is marked A in the sketch map and a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from creating any disturbance in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the rest part of the suit land marked B in the sketch.

4. Plaintiff-opposite party claims to have purchased the suit land on 26.12.1988 under a registered sale deed followed by delivery of possession. It is not disputed that the defendants-petitioners have got their land to the adjoining west of the suit land. It is alleged that in order to make construction of his dwelling house over the suit land when opposite party got the suit land demarcated on 20.02.2012 he came to know that the petitioners have encroached a portion of the suit land marked A in the sketch map and amalgamated the same with their land. It is further alleged that when the opposite party was proceeding with construction work over the rest part of the suit land which is marked B in the sketch map the petitioners created disturbance. Hence the suit.

5. Petitioners in their written statement have taken the stand that the opposite party s claim that he has been possessing the suit land from the date of his purchase is false that the opposite party had never possessed the suit land at any point of time that the suit land marked A has never been amalgamated by the petitioners with their purchased land that they have been in possession of their own purchased land since the date of their purchase that the petitioners purchased their land with dimension 57 feet x 70 feet from their vendor under registered sale deed dated 27.4.2004 who in turn had purchased the piece of land from one Purnabasi Sahu widow of Late Dhobai Sahu on 12.11.1997 that the plaint is hit under Order-7 Rule-3 of C.P.C. inasmuch as the suit land has not been properly described that since suit land marked A portion is a part of their purchased land and they have been in the possession thereof they are not liable to be evicted.

6. Though it is averred in the W.S. that the suit land is not properly described and that a portion of the suit land marked A has been in the possession of the petitioners it is nowhere pleaded that the petitioners are either in possession of the rest portion of the suit land marked B or that it is part of the land they purchased and got delivery of possession from their vendor. Learned trial court finding the opposite party to have got prima facie title in the suit land and balance of convenience in his favour and he would suffer irreparable injury if he is not permitted to enjoy the plaint schedule B portion of the suit land granted interim injunction. When that matter was challenged in F.A.O. No.812 of 2012 the learned lower appellate court having considered the pleadings of the parties observe that the actual dispute between the parties is in respect of an area measuring 57 feet x 3.5 feet which is said to be under forcible possession of the petitioners which is marked A in the sketch map with further observation that if at all there exists any boundary dispute the same can be so