JUDGMENT

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - The matter is heard through video conferencing.

2. The appellant is a plaintiff in Suit No. 883 of 2020 Smt. Paramjeet Kaur vs. Ahsan Ali and Others'. The plaint thus instituted by the plaintiff/appellant on 29.08.2020 described the property therein in its paragraph-12, which is referred to hereunder:

image

3. Even the chauhaddi of the property in dispute was also described at the foot of the plaint as mentioned above. The appellant/plaintiff herein filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, before the learned Trial Court, which was numbered as Paper No. 6 C (2), wherein, he prayed for the grant of temporary injunction of the nature by way of a restraint as against the defendants from interference over the property, which was more appropriately described as to be the property lying in 2376/1; having an area of 0.3080 hectares, situated in Mauja Markham Grant-Second Pargana Parwadoon, District Dehradun. The said application was objected by the defendants by filing an objection under Order 39 Rule 4, which has been considered by the learned Trial Court and by the impugned order, which is under challenge in the present appeal has been rejected, which has been challenged by the plaintiff/appellant, by invoking the provisions contained under Order 43 Rule 1 (r), has rejected the application of the plaintiff/appellant.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant had argued that in view of the provisions contained under Order 7 Rule 3, which is quoted hereunder, it mandates a responsibility, which is casted on the plaintiff to appropriately describe the property in the suit, which, in a case if it is in relation to an immovable property, so as to enable its identifiability of the same for the purposes of an effective adjudication of the suit. Order 7 Rule 3 of the C.P.C. is quoted hereunder:

"3. Where the subject matter of the suit is immovable property.- Where the subject matter of the suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain a description of the property sufficient to identity it, and, in case such property can be identified by boundaries or numbers in a record of settlement or survey, the plaint shall specify such boundaries or numbers."

5. The aforesaid provision as contained under Order 7 Rule 3, the reference of which has been made by the learned counsel for the appellant, in fact, is only procedural in nature and it is not a substantive provision, which is substantively required to be determined to adjudicate, or for the purposes of deciding the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2. This Court is of the opinion that the application, which is preferred under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2; cannot be isolatedly decided merely because of the fact that the plaintiff in compliance of the provision of Order 7 Rule 3, had appropriately and effectively described the boundaries of the property in dispute; and hence, he would be automatically entitled for grant of injunction. This contention is not acceptable by this Court, for the reason being that, very interestingly if we scrutinize the findings, which has been recorded by the impugned order under challenge as was rendered by the court of Civil Judge (S.D.), the flow of title over the property in question relates to from the sale deed dated 26.09.2011, whereby, the seller of the present plaintiff/appellant, i.e. Mr. Ram Chandra, had purchased the property from its predecessor owner Mr. Laxmi Chand, which in itself described the property, which was conveyed by Laxmi Chand to Ram Chandra and by Ram Chandra to the present plaintiff/appellant by sale deed dated 20.05.2015.

6. Subsequent thereto, the plaintiff/appellant claims and pleaded in suit that he is the purchaser of the property by virtue of the sale deed dated 20.05.2015, as was executed by Mr. Ram Chandra in favour of the present plaintiff/appellant, and as per the sale deed, the property in question was described therein and the boundaries of the same was also given, which has b