Point of Law : Grant of mandatory injunction is not prohibited in all cases if a clear prima facie material is placed which justifies a finding that status quo may be altered by one of the parties if the order of mandatory injunction is not given.

JUDGMENT :

1. This petition has been filed praying for setting aside the order dated 25.10.2019 and the order dated 02.07.2019 passed by the learned Appellate Court in Civil Appeal no.02 of 2014 and the order dated 28.01.2014 passed by learned Trial Court in Regular Suit No.478 of 2011.

2. Heard Sri Virendra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Md. Ali, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.

3. The case set up by the petitioner before this Court is that as per the pedigree given in paragraph-3 of the petition, one Jagannath was the owner of two houses situated adjacent to each other. He had two sons, namely, Chhailbihari and Lalta Prasad, both are now dead. Chhailbihari had one son Ram Pratap, who has been arrayed as respondent no.3 and Dwarka Prasad also had one son who was differently abled and died a long time ago and the petitioner is the widow of Dwarka Prasad. There are two houses situated adjacent to each other. The house of the petitioner is existing in a single storey in a dilapidated condition, whereas the house of the respondent no.3 situated next to it is double storey and has a shop also in it. Whereas the house of the respondent no.3 has all basic amenities like electricity connection and water pipeline, the house of the petitioner is in a pitiable condition with no electricity connection or water pipeline. She being a widow, is somehow surviving in the said house. The respondent no.3 taking the benefit of her old age and being a stamp vendor in the Civil Court and aware of court procedure, tried to grab her house by instituting a Regular Suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner on false allegation that he is the exclusive owner in the possession of the house in dispute i.e. the house which is adjacent to his own house and in dilapidated condition in which the petitioner lives, alleging that the father of the plaintiff Chhailbihari and the husband of the defendant Dwarka Prasad were real brothers and the ancestral house which was situated near Cooperative Seed Godown in front of Hatan road had been left by the father of the plaintiff in favour of his brother i.e. the husband of the defendant has he too was differently able and feeble minded.

4. Since the husband of the petitioner and her son were both feeble minded, it was alleged that the plaintiff brought them in the his house and the defendant sold the ancestral house and started residing with the plaintiff. Thereafter the plaintiff got allotted the House no.3/26 in favour of defendant/ petitioner in Kashiram Shahri Awas Yojana and accordingly the defendant/ petitioner shifted in the said house along with her son who died on 12.08.2011. It has been submitted that the petitioner/ defendant was shown to be residing at the house situated in Kashiram Shahri Awas Yojana and not in Mohalla Shubhash Nagar by way of an amendment in the plaint which was allowed on 02.07.2019, which order has also been challenged in this petition. Such amendment was carried out only to avoid proper service of the plaint in Regular Suit being made upon her. It was alleged in the plaint that after the death of her son, the defendant/ petitioner tried to sell the house in dispute in favour of a muscleman after taking forcible the possession from the plaintiff, accordingly necessity arose to file the Suit.

5. It has been submitted by Sri Virendra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner that initially the respondent no.3 had shown the correct address of the petitioner i.e. the house in dispute, however mischievously the said plaint was amended and she was shown to have been residing at the house situated at Kashiram Shahri Awas Yojana. This was only to enable the plaintiff to manage that the notice of the Regular Suit be not served upon the petitioner and he may be able to obtain ex parte injunction. It has been submitted that after notice was issued, since the petitioner could not be served, the same was published in some newspaper and such condition was found to b