The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of documentary evidence, lawful possession, and the conduct of the parties in determining the grant of injunction.

ORDER :

Sujoy Paul, J.

1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution assails the order dated 01.02.2021 passed by the learned IIIrd Addl. District Judge, Rewa in M.C.A. No. 122/2018 whereby Misc. Appeal filed by the private respondents against the order passed by the court below under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC is allowed by the court and order of injunction dated 06.09.2018 was set aside.

2. Briefly stated, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a civil suit under Section 34 and 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of certain lands situated in village Majhboga, Tehsil Raipur Karchuliyan, District Rewa.

3. Shri Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners' prayed for declaration mainly on the ground of adverse possession for more than 12 years and prayed for injunction on the basis of possession. The trial court heard the parties on the application preferred under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 of CPC and rightly decided it by order dated 06.09.2018. The respondents/defendants were injuncted from creating third party right or alienate the property. This injunction order was initially granted for a period of one year but was extended from time to time and remained in operation till the injunction order dated 06.09.2018 was set aside by the appellate court on 01.02.2021.

4. Criticizing the impugned order of appellate court, Shri K.C. Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the pleadings of the parties were rightly considered and appreciated by the trial court by holding that the petitioners/plaintiffs were in possession with the knowledge of defendants right from 1982. Heavy reliance was placed on para 14 to 18 of the order passed by the trial court on 06.09.2018. By taking this court to the appellate order, learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the learned appellate court has erred in basing its findings solely on the ground that in support of claim of plaintiffs, no documentary evidence was produced. It is submitted that the documentary evidence was not required in a case of this nature when pleadings were clear. In support of aforesaid contention, Shri Ghildiyal placed reliance on para-62 of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Ravinder Kaur Grewal and others Vs. Manjit Kaur and others, (2019) 8 SCC 729. It is argued that a person in possession cannot be ousted by another person except by following "due process". Moreso, when he was in adverse possession for over a period of 12 years. A person aggrieved by dispossession by another person by taking law in his hands can maintain a possessory suit under Article 64. Thus, the other side has a right to file a suit of that nature subsequently. Furthermore, the judgment of Apex Court reported in (1996) 2 SCC 225 (Rajnibai(smt.) alias Mannubai Vs. Kamla Devi (smt.) and others) was referred to contend that court has inherent power to protect the right of the parties in cases of corporeal right to the property. (1995) 5 SCC 545 (Gujrat Bottling Co. Ltd. and others Vs. Coca Cola Co. and others was relied upon to contend that apart from necessary ingredients for grant of injunction, namely, prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, there exists yet another important factor on the basis of which equity jurisdiction of injunction can be exercised. The conduct of the parties, submits Shri Ghildiyal is that factor. After the injunction order is set aside by the appellate court and till present date, the defendants have created third party rights. To elaborate, it is submitted that judgment of Gujarat Bottling (supra) is equally applicable to defendants. (2004) 8 SCC 488 (Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd) Faridkot Vs. Baldev Dass was referred to submit that in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation, in a case of this nature, injunction order must be maintained.

5. Per contra, Shri Dubey learned counsel for the respondents opposed the said contention. He