IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE(S.D.

) 1ST COURT, CUTTACK

Civil Suit No. 693/2022

1. Usman khan, aged about 34 years

2. Imtiaz khan, aged about 32 years
3. Imran khan, aged about 25 years
All are sons of late Mumtaz khan of
Pattapolo, P.O. Buxibazar, PS- Cantonment,
Town/District -Cuttack ……Plaintiff

Versus

1. Sk. Rasid (Chand), aged about 53 years

Son of late Sk. Rafiq.
2. Asma Bibi, aged about 43 years
Wife of Sk.Rasid
3. Sk. Zayad(Rahat), aged sabout19 years
Son of Sk. Rasid
All are of Pattapolo (mamela), PO- Buxibazar,
P.S. Cantonment, Town/Dist- Cuttack ..…Defendants

SUIT FOR PERMANENT OR MANDATORY INJUNCTION

The above named plaintiff beg to state as follows-

1. That, the parties are Mohammedan by Religion and governed under Hanafi School of
Mohammedan law.
2. That, Hal Khata no. 20 comprising Plot No.155 A.O.029 dec. and Plot No. 157-A.O.035 dec.
under Mouza- Cuttack Sahara, UnitNo. 11, Oriya Bazar, commonly known as Pattapolo, stood
recorded in the name of Usman Khan, Mohhamad Khan, Hasan Khan, morefully described in
the schedule below is the subject matter of the suit.
3. That, the plaintiff are the legal heirs of recorded tenant Hasan Khan, S/O- Ujir Khan, whereas
the defendants are outsiders/strangers to the family of recorded tenants.
4. That, although the schedule properties along with other property are in joint till yet, but the
plaintiffs and their co- sharers have been separately possessing by constructing house over
the same. Accordingly, the plaintiffs have exclusively possessing the other Nos. 156 and 157.
The defendants are in possession of part of suit PlotNo.157 alleging that they have
purchased an undivided share of recorded tenant Mohammad Khan. However, the plaintiffs
and defendants are separately possessing the suit schedule property since long.
5. That, the defendants have come to public road towards eastern side of their alleged
purchased plot No.157 as it is adjoining to Govt. Land which is used as public passage. The
house of the plaintiff is situated towards eastern of the suit Plot no. 157 and northern side of
the plot no. 156.
6. That, as there is no direct access of plaintiffs to public road, the fore fathers of plaintiffs have
left some areas for private passage for ingress and aggress to public road towards southern
side from suit Plot No. 155. The width of the private passage i.e. east to West 04feet and
length i.e. North to South would be 23 feet. The said passage is the only access to the
 plaintiffs for ingress and aggress to public road and except the suit passage, the plaintiffs
have no other alter passage to their suit plot no. 155.
For better appreciation a rough sketch map is given in the schedule of the plaint.

7. That, it is respectfully submitted that the recorded tenant namely Hasan Khan (the ancestor
of the plaintiffs filed suit for partition in respect of suit schedule property before the Civil
Judge, Cuttack in title suit no. 271/1987 and the Hon’ble Civil Judge observed that the suit
property has long since been partitioned and common passage might have been included in
Plot No. 155. Thereafter, the plaintiffs have been exclusively used the suit passage for
ingress and aggress ore than fourty years as of easement without any obstruction from the
co- sharer till yet.
8. That, as stated above, the defendants who are belonged to one family and defendant No.1
and 2 allegedly claiming the purchase of suit Plot No.157 from Manwar Khan, S/O- Late
Mohammad Khan on 9.7.1998 and in possession of the same. The defendant have no way
nexus to their alleged plot as the defendant have direct access to public road towards
western side of his purchased land and they have no manner of right, title, interest over the
passage of plaintiffs
9. That, a few months back the defendant forcibly tried to make Taza and open door and
window over the suit passage of plaintiffs. The plaintiffs vividly opposed to such high-handed
act of defendants and intimated to local panchayat who also advised to defendants No. 1 to
3not to open door or window or Taza over the private passage of plaintiffs. But the
defendants did not pay any head rather threaten with dire consequences.
10. That, the plaintiff lodged complain before the local police station but invain. In the
meantime, the defendant No. 1and 2 initiated a proceeding u/s. 144 Cr.P.C. vide Cri. Misc.
Case No.600/2022 and tried to obtain order without serving notice upon plaintiffs in order to
block suit passage. However, the said proceeding was dropped.
11. That, the plaintiffs are very simple, innocent and law-abiding citizen always requested
defendants not to encroach/block the only passage of the plaintiffs but the defendants are
not paying any heed rather trying to encroach the passage of the plaintiffs with oblique
motive. As sated above the plaintiffs have no other passage to come to public road except
the private passage as shown in schedule-8 of the plaint, whereas, the defendants have
close access to public road. In order to protect the passage of the plaintiffs, they filed the
suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against defendants.
12. That, the cause of action of the suit arose o 15.4.2022, when the defendants tried to
encroach the only passage or plaintiffs by making door, window and Taza. On 28.4.2022 the
plaintiffs intimated to local Panch and also police station. On 20.6.2022, the defendants
again tried to invade to block the passage of the plaintiffs and lastly on 15.7.2022, the
plaintiffs requested to defendants not to open the door, window and taza on the suit
passage and each day thereafter within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court.
13. That, the suit property is valued at Rs.50,000/- for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction
and Rs.100/- for mandatory injunction in all Rs.50,100/-on which advolarem court fee Rs.
is payable.
14. That, the plaintiff therefore pray that: -
a. Let a permanent injunction be granted against the defendant restraining them to come
upon or make any construction or open door or window over the suit passage as
described in suit schedule-A property as shown in Schedule-B sketch map.
b. Incase, during pendency of the sui, the defendants make construction or open door or
window over the suit passage, the same maybe recovered through the process of court.
c. Cost of the suit be decreed.
d. Such other relief as circumstances justify be decreed.

Cuttack By the plaintiff through

Dt.01/08/2022

Advocate