Point of Law: Any revision filed in the district court in a case where the value of the original suit or proceeding does not exceed five lakh rupees and is decided by it on the assumption that the district court would have jurisdiction notwithstanding the amendment of Section 115 of the principal Act, by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 shall be deemed to have been correctly filed in that court and its decision thereon shall not be liable to be questioned on this ground, and such revision, if any pending on the date of commencement of this Act, shall be decided by that court.], S.2]
(emphasis by Court)

JUDGMENT :

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against an order dated 31.01.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Hathras passed in Civil Revision No. 10 of 2016, allowing the said revision and setting aside an order of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hathras made in Original Suit No. 715 of 2013, rejecting the temporary injunction application made by the plaintiff. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has, by the impugned order, directed parties to maintain status quo regarding the property in dispute, pending suit.

2. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. O.S. No. 715 of 2013 was filed by the plaintiff-respondent nos. 1 and 2 against the defendant-petitioner nos. 1 to 4, arrayed as the defendants first set, and petitioner no. 5 along with four other defendants, arrayed as the defendants second set, seeking a mandatory injunction to the effect that defendant nos. 1 to 4 be ordered to remove their constructions standing over the suit property, denoted by letters 'A' 'B' 'C' 'D' in the plaint map and shown in red colour, and further that they should, after removal of the illegal constructions, remove debris of the demolished building, vacating the suit property within time, to be specified by the court; and upon failure to comply with the decree, the decree be ordered to be carried into execution through process of Court at the defendants' expense.

4. A temporary injunction application was made in the said suit, where it was alleged that the defendants are attempting to raise constructions over the suit property, in addition to the existing ones, in respect of which, a decree of mandatory injunction has been claimed. The basis of the suit appears to be that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of Khasra No. 52/5, admeasuring 0.5 hectares, situate in Kasba Hasayan. This land was originally a part of Khasra No. 52, admeasuring 1.405 hectares. Khasra No. 52 had a number of co-sharers. A suit for partition was filed by a co-sharer, being Suit No. 205 of 2010-2011, under Section 176/182 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950[for short “Act of 1950”]. The suit was decreed, where a preliminary decree was passed by the Revenue Court, on 24.08.2011. A final decree followed on 27.08.2011. In the final decree, lots were drawn and Khasra No. 52/5 fell to the plaintiff’s lot. It is land bearing Khasra No. 52/5, admeasuring 0.55 hectares, which is the property in dispute.

5. After the Revenue Court passed a final decree for partition and Khas possession to be delivered to parties, an application was made by the plaintiff-petitioner no. 2 Durga Prasad, seeking that the land in dispute be declared an abadi under Section 143 of the Act of 1950. This application of the second petitioner’s was registered as Case No. 15 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned and the land in dispute was declared an abadi. Thus, the petitioners became owners in possession of the abadi. About two years ago, the plaintiffs established over the land in dispute an educational institution known as the Jaldhara Devi Inter College, Hasayan, District -Hathras. It was claimed that defendant nos. 1 to 4 to the suit, who are in connivance with the defendant nos. 5 to 9, are land grabbers and intended to usurp the property in dispute. The defendants first and second set are all kinsmen. About an year anterior to the institution of the suit, defendants first set, in connivance with the defendants second set, encroached upon a part of the property in dispute, the encroachment being 103 meters in length, running from East to West, and 4 meters in width, running from North to South. They illegally and forcibly constructed a pucca room and a kachcha boundary wall around that room. It is to remove the aforesaid encroachment that the suit for mandatory injunction was brought. Since the defendants intended to raise some further constructions in order to c