2025:JHHC:12996 IN THE HIGH COURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Revision No. 41of 2022 --------- Hikim Chandra Tudu, aged about 63 years, son of Late Dasmat Tudu, resident of Karandih, Main Road, P.O. & P.S. Parsudih, Town Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum ….. ..… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Mangal Santhal, son of Late Ponga Santhal 3. Bineshwar Santhal, son of Late Rinchu Santhal 4. Dhano Santhal, son of Late Rinchu Santhal Nos.2 to 4 are resident of village-Dangoria, P.O. Bhutgora, P.S.- Potka, District-East Singhbhum 5. Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S.- Jamshedpur Town, District-East Singhbhum ….. .…. Opp. Parties --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Prabhash Kumar, Advocate Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate Mr. Ganesh Ram, Advocate For the O.P.-State : Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate (AC to SC-I) For the O.P. Nos.2-4 : Mr. Akshay Kr. Mahato, Advocate ----------- 10/Dated:30thApril, 2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present revision application is directed against the order dated 08.07.2022 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Jamshedpur in Civil Misc. Appeal No.03 of 2022, whereby and whereunder the prayer for temporary injunction of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC declined by the learned trial court in Title Suit No.80 of 2017 filed by plaintiff/petitioner has been uphold and appeal was dismissed. 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the plaintiff-petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The plaintiff/petitioner has filed Title Suit No.80 of 2025:JHHC:12996 2 Civil Revision No.41 of 2022 2017 in the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division at Jamshedpur for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over the suit land under Khata No.299 comprising Plot Nos.809, 810, 811, 812 and 813 total area 1.90 acre situated at Mauza-Karandih, P.S. Parsudih, Revenue Thana No.1166, District-East Singhbhum and the defendants have no right, title and interest therein. The plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants/opposite party nos. 2 to 4 from raising any construction over the suit property, which has been rejected and against the above rejection order, plaintiff/petitioner filed Misc. Appeal No.03 of 2022, which has also been dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the grounds that learned lower appellate court has failed to consider that the defendant Nos.2 to 4 are making an attempt to change the nature and character of suit property forcibly and are trying to make construction upon the suit land, which would cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff/petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the lower court below failed to properly appreciate the correct meaning, tenor and spirit of the provisions, as enshrined under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and erred in law while passing the impugned order. It is further submitted that the defendant Nos.2- 4 had not filed any rejoinder to the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and did not appear for arguments before trial court in Original Suit No.80 of 2017. Learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiff has old house over the land in question under his occupation and it has been forcibly damaged by the defendant nos. 2 to 4 by making construction in the suit land and thus the plaintiff/petitioner herein has prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour, hence, the impugned order is fit to be set aside, allowing this revision petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the learned appellant court after considering the matter properly has dismissed the Civil 2025:JHHC:12996 3 Civil Revision No.41 of 2022 Misc. Appeal, which is proper and in accordance with law. The plaintiff/petitioner is claiming the suit property on ground of adverse possession since 1954 without placing reliance upon any chit of paper showing their title over the suit property. They are also not in possession of suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff-petitioner is not entitled for any relief of temporary injunction as sought for. As such, the instant revision petition is liable to set aside. 6. Having heard the rival contentions of the learned counsel for both sides and upon perusal of the records, it appears that the land in question is recorded in the name of Anbad Bihar Sarkar (now Jharkhand) and the name of the plaintiff/petitioner has not been mentioned anywhere in the Khatian and thus the plaintiff/petitioner has failed to produce any document to establish that he has any prima facie right, title and interest over the suit property. On the other hand, the defendants/ opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 are claiming their right, title and interest over the suit property on the basis of decree obtained from the competent Court in Title Suit No. 134 of 1989 vide judgment dated 06.11.1990, which would go to show that they are in physical possession of the suit property right from 1954. 7. Since the defendants-opposite parity nos. 2 to 4 are in physical possession over the suit land, thus the learned appellate court has rightly rejected the Civil Misc. Appeal No.03 of 2022. This Court is in full agreement with the findings recorded by the learned appellate Court below and no interference is warranted in the instant revision. 8. There is no merit in this civil revision and the same is hereby dismissed. 9. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Pappu/-