The right of a caveator to be heard before passing any order on an application for injunction, as provided in Section 148-A of the Civil Procedure Code-1948, must be respected.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Skand Bajpai, Advocate holding brief of Shri Pradeep Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.6.

2. This petition has been filed for setting-aside the order dated 20.09.2023 passed in Original Suit No.723 of 2023 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kadipur, District-Sultanpur. A further prayer has been made for direction not to demolish the housing abode described in the foot of plaint and they may not dislodge the peaceful possession and occupation of petitioners over the land in question described in the foot of plaint and for a direction for deciding the application for interim injunction on merits on the next date fixed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the basis of spot inspection on 10.09.2023, the petitioners were directed to remove the alleged encroachment made by the petitioners on 10x10 part of Gata No.20/0.038 hec., which is recorded as Naveen Parti and encroached by the petitioners which has been selected for R.R.C. Center. It has further been observed that in the notice, in case the petitioners do not violate the direction issued by the authorities, the temporary encroachment would be removed immediately. Being aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioners, after a notice under Section 82 of the C.P.C., filed a suit for permanent injunction before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kadipur, District-Sultanpur alongwith an application for interim injunction. The application for interim injunction has not been considered merely on the ground that there is a caveat by a private person and without notice to him the same can not be heard, whereas there was no occasion for a private person to file a caveat in regard to the government land and caveat has been filed by the husband of the Gram Pradhan due to political reason so that the petitioners may not get any indulgence from the trial court. The learned trial court, without considering the provisions of Order-39, Rule-3 C.P.C. that on account of urgency in the matter, there is no requirement of issuance of notice to the opposite parties, passed the impugned order, therefore, the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court and submit that the order passed by the trial court may be set-aside and the injunction may be granted.

4. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that once a caveat was filed, it is for the concerned court to see that the orders are not passed without any opportunity to the caveator, therefore there is no illegality or error in the impugned order. He further submits that petitioners have filed a suit for permanent injunction without any prayer for declaration, therefore no injunction can be granted against the owners. The petitioners have disclosed in paragraph-4 of the plaint that the petitioners have perfected their right under Section 123(1) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and Section 67-A(i) of the U.P. Revenue Code-2006 and they have become owner of the land in dispute, therefore unless they are able to show as to how they are owner of the land in dispute, they are not entitled for injunction.

5. Learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha also adopting the submissions of learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that since the suit for permanent injunction has only been filed without any prayer for declaration, no injunction can be granted against the true owner.

6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.09.2023 passed in Regular Suit No.723 of 2023 by Civil Judge (J.D) Kadipur, Sultanpur, by means of which the trial court has observed that a caveat has been filed in the matter therefore without hearing the caveator/ defendants it would not be appropriate to pass an ex-parte order and issued the notice to the caveator/ defendant. It appear