A mere apprehension without tangible evidence does not justify the granting of an interim injunction.

Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral).

Heard.

2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in Civil Suit No.; 140 of 2022 pending on the files of Learned Civil Judge, Barsar, District Hamirpur. He claims himself to be owner of the suit land which is described as the land comprised in Khata No. 48 min Khatoni No.49, Khasra No.1565, 1702, 1704, Kita 3 land measuring 7 Kanal 19 Marla as per Jamabandi for the year 2002-2003 situated in Tikka Pahlu, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P.

3. A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction has been sought by the plaintiff against the defendants to the effect that they should not dig and destroy the boundary marks of the suit land in the process of extending the passage/road or remove the lateral support or change the nature of the suit land or to interfere in any manner.

4. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for interim injunction in the same terms as the prayer is made in the main suit.

5. Defendants No.1 and 4 have filed the written statement. It is claimed that the land comprised in Khasra No.1547 that adjoins the suit land is owned and possessed by the State Government. The land in Khasra No. 1547 in fact, is a public path.

6. Defendants No. 2 and 3 by way of their separate written statement have alleged that the path in Khasra No.1547 is about 1 Kilometer long out of which about 900 meters has already been paved and cemented. It is the balance 100 meters of the path which is in deteriorated condition and causes difÏculties to the users. A sum of Rs.5,00,000/- is stated to have been sanctioned for developing the aforesaid path by the Gram Panchayat. It has been submitted that the defendants intend to develop the path only within the dimensions of land comprised in Khasra No. 1547 and have not intent to disturb the suit land in any manner.

7. Learned trial Court has dismissed the application for interim injunction filed by the plaintiff by taking into consideration the fact that defendants No.2 and 3 had got the land in Khasra No. 1547 demarcated. The plaintiff, who had been issued notice of demarcation, had refused to participate by leaving the spot. The fact that the defendants only intended to develop the path in Khasra No.1547 has also been considered by the learned trial Court. In the above backdrop, learned trial Court did not find it appropriate to exercise the jurisdiction in favour of the plaintiff and hence dismissed the application.

8. Plaintiff assailed the order passed by the learned trial Court in appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(r) before the learned Additional District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. However, having remained unsuccessful there also he has approached this Court by way of instant petition.

9. Having considered the submissions made by both the sides and also after going through the records of the case as made available on the file, I am of the considered view that the orders passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hamirpur as also the learned Civil Judge, Barsar required no interference. I have not found any illegality or perversity in the said orders. My reasons are as under:-

10. Noticeably, the suit of the plaintiff is only on apprehension entertained by him that the defendants while developing path in Khasra No.1547 may encroach upon his land or may cause damage thereto. There is no specific pleading in the plaint that the boundary marks fixed by the competent revenue ofÏcer are existing on spot.

11. Mere apprehension in certain cases may be sufÏcient to issue injunction, nonetheless, it must have support of some tangible material prima facie suggesting intrusion on the rights of plaintiff by t