1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 435 of 2023 1. Balkrishna Prasad Mehta aged 47 years, son of Sri Matukdhari Mahto 2. Reena Devi, aged 43 years, wife of Balkrishna Prasad Mehta, Both petitioners are resident of village Dariya, P.O. Ratanpur, P.S. Ichak, District-Hazaribag, at present resident of village Sindur, P.S. Sadar, P.O. and District-Hazaribagh ………………….Petitioners … Versus…. 1. Babita Pandit wife of Arun Kumar 2. Gunwanti Devi wife of late Sarju Pandit 3. Arun Kumar son of late Sarju Pandit All respondents No. 1 to 3 are resident of village Kumhartoli, Parnala, P.S. Sadar, P.O. and District- Hazaribagh 4. Ajit Khanna, son of late Trithnath Khanna, resident of village Sindur, P.O. and P.S. Sadar, District- Hazaribagh …… Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners : Mr. Amar Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : ………. 03/Dated: 04/02/2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 16.01.2023 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Hazaribagh in Misc. Appeal No. 3/2022 affirming the order dated 27.05.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Hazaribagh in Title Suit No. 140 of 2018 whereby petition filed by the petitioners under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of C.P.C. for grant of temporary injunction was dismissed. 3. Mr. Amar Kr. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the plaintiffs/petitioners have filed Title Suit No. 140/2018 for declaration of title and confirmation of possession of the plaintiffs in the suit land and in alternative, if the plaintiffs are dispossessed of the suit land, the same may be recovered by dispossessing defendants from the suit and putting the plaintiffs 2 over khas possession over the same. He submits that other relief was also made therein. According to him after notice the defendants have appeared and filed their written statement. He submits that during pendency of the suit, the defendants/respondents cut the tree standing on the suit land and on protest, the respondents threatened the petitioners to kill. He further submits that the O.Ps. arranged the materials for constructing on the suit land. He submits that in this background petition under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of C.P.C. has been filed for grant of temporary injunction which was dismissed. He further submits that the learned court dismissed the same by order dated 27.05.2022 and against that order the petitioners filed Misc. Appeal No. 3/2022 before the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Hazaribagh and the said appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 16.01.2023. He then submits that both the courts have erred in considering the spirit of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and in view of that the said orders may kindly be quashed and temporary injunction may kindly be made. 4. The Court has looked into the order of the learned trial court dated 27.05.2022. The learned court by a reasoned order came to the conclusion that title of the plaintiffs is itself in dispute and in view of that the said petition was dismissed. Learned court has also found that defendants had purchased the suit property by registered deed and by the impugned order the learned appellate court has also affirmed the same considering the reason and giving its own finding. 5. If such a situation is there, the plaintiffs’ title is itself in doubt and the petitioners have not been able to prove their possession and in that view of the matter the learned court has found three ingredients that is prima facie balance of convenience and irreparable loss has not been made out by the plaintiffs and in view of that those orders have been passed. 3 6. There is no illegality in the impugned orders. No case of interference is required. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Pending I.A. if any, stands dismissed. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/-