The plaint of the suit for permanent injunction filed by the present petitioner was rejected by the learned trial Court on 20.02.2017 under the provisions of Order WI Rule 11 C.P.C.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Samundri vide impugned judgment and decree dated 29.04.2017.
2. Admittedly, the property for which injunction was sought by the plaintiff was State land and possession over the said property was unauthorized. In support of claim of the plaint, a Jamabandi, was produced before the Court, which on suspicion, was referred to Revenue Authorities and a report was received to the effect that it was a forged document.
Learned counsel for the petitioner after admission to the effect that it was a State land has submitted that the injunction was sought on the strength of longstanding possession over the property by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner.
The concept of adverse possession is no more recognized under the law.
A further grievance has been raised by the petitioner to the effect that in addition to rejection of plaint, the learned trial Court has further proceeded to order for initiation of criminal proceedings against the plaintiff/present petitioner particularly for production of forged document treating the same as genuine one. When confronted, A learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that in order to get the said criminal proceedings quashed, independent proceedings have been initiated by the plaintiff. When such criminal proceedings have separately been challenged, the same has no relevance with the present civil revision petition.
3. The courts below have rightly rejected the plaint by invoking provisions of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. and in doing so, both the courts have committed no illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.
4. Resultantly, having no substance, this petition is dismissed.