The court must record reasons for granting an ex parte injunction as required under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC and cannot rely upon an ex parte report of a Commissioner without considering and disposing of the objections filed against it by the contesting defendants.

S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard the coun sel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel representing the Caveator as well as Gaon Sabha, respondent No. 7.

2. Perused the record.

Feeling aggrieved by an order passed by the Board of Revenue, respondent No. 1 dated 23. 2. 94 whereunder accepting the reference made by the Additional Com missioner dated 21. 4. 93 the revising authority had set aside the order of the trial court dated 30. 4. 92 granting ex pane, injunction against the defendants as well as the order passed by it dated 16. 11. 92 requiring the restoration of the status quo in respect of the land in dispute as reported by the Commissioner in his report dated 4. 5. 92 and directing for the re-construction of the dol and in case there had been any alteration in the possession in that event restoration of possession, the plaintiffs-petitioners have now approached this court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the order of the Board of Revenue, respon dent No. 1 as well as the referring order passed by the Additional Commissioner indicated herein before.

3. From a perusal of the record, it appears that plaintiffs- petitioners had filed a suit No. 35/1992 under Section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act seeking the dec laration to the effect that they were the Bhumidhar of Khasra Plot No. 322 having in area of 6-Bigha-l Biswa-10 Biswansi and were netitled to be recorded as such in the revenue records. The plaintiffs claimned that the land in dispute had been let out to them for a period of one year on crop sharing basis but even after the expiry of one year they continued to cultivate the said land for about 12 years and matured Bhumidhari rights therein. It was further alleged that although the recorded tenure-holder requested the plaintiffs to vacate the land in dispute yet it was not done. The plaintiffs alleged that though the land in dispute was continuing to be in their exclusive cultivatory possession and the recorded tenure-holder had no right or title left therein yet in an unauthorized manner he sold the land in dispute to defendants Nos. 2 and 3 on 27. 1. 92 and 30. 1. 92 through the sale- deeds which were null and void. It was further alleged that the defendants threatened to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs, hence the suit.

4. The aforesaid suit was contested by the recorded tenure-holder defendant No.

1 as well as transfers, defendants Nos.

2 and 3. They denied the allegations made in the plaint and asserted that the land in dispute had never been let out to the plaintiffs and that they had never been in possession of the said land. which

throughout continued to be in exclusive cultivatory possession of the recorded tenure-holder till its transfer whereafter the transferees were in possession thereof.

5. It appears, that along with the plaint the plaintiffs had moved an applica tion under Section 229-D of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act seeking an interim injunction against the defendants restraining them from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the land in dispute. It appears that on the aforesaid application seeking interim injuction the trial court on 30-4-92 issued an ex parte injunction to the effect that slants quo on the spot be maintained and in case the plaintiffs were in possession over the land in dispute in that even they be not dispossessed till the date of service of the notice. The plaintiffs had also applied for appointment of a commissioner for ef fecting the service of the injunction order and the notice. On this application the trial court had appointed a Commissioner who was required to serve the injuction order on the defendants and to prepare a sketch map of the land in dispute and note the facts pointed out by the plaintiffs and submit a report. The Commissioner submitted a report dated 4-5-92. The defendants Nos. 2 and 3 the transferees filed an objection against the report on 22. 6. 92. On the same date th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document