Trace Your Case


Shri Bhagwan Narvadeshwar Ji Maharaj Mandir v. Sunita Singh MANU/UP/4692/2018


  • Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant under Order XVII, Rule 3 of C.P.C. on the ground that the application was placed before the trial court to adduce evidence in the form of oral evidence and, therefore, there was no occasion to dismiss the suit?
  • Whether the trial court has rejected the application by wrongly interpreting the provisions for adducing and taking the evidence under Order XVIII Rule 2 read with Rule 3 (A) of C.P.C?
  • Whether the lower appellate court could not have decided the issues on merits merely by placing reliance on the findings returned by the trial court while disposing of the injunction application.


  • Rule 3A Order XVIII and Rule 2 Order XVIII of Code of Civil Procedure 1908.


  • The plaintiff/appellant, through his Manager, filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants/respondents from raising any construction on a piece of land by claiming that it is disputed.
  • The defendants/respondents denied the plaint allegations through the written statement and set up the defence that the land of the temple was never in dispute.
  • Plaintiff moved an application along with a list of four persons to whom he wanted to be examined. The first amongst them was Itwar Nath.
  • The trial court rejected the application stating that the oral evidence could have been led in the order of witnesses listed before the court at the instance of the plaintiff.
  • It also held that the plaintiff, having failed to produce the main witness, namely, Itwar Nath, cannot be permitted to adduce the oral evidence of other witnesses.
  • On appeal, the appellate court concurred with the finding so returned by the trial court in rejecting the application and found the order to be justified.


  • The court held that they did not see any illegality or manifest error in the order passed by the trial court in rejecting the application under Order XVIII Rule 3A C.P.C.
  • Thus, the court stated that the trial court has rightly rejected the application and dismissed the suit under Order XVII Rule 3, and the finding returned by the court is a concurrent one and does not appear to be vitiated for any non-consideration of any material on record or misreading of any evidence.
  • The court further stated that the lower appellate court could have decided the issues by relying on the findings returned by the trial court because it had additionally and not entirely referred to such findings.