Ajit Singh vs Kuldeep Singh and Another

G.C. Garg, J.—The petitioner and respondent No. 2 were the joint owners of land measuring 71 Kanals 15 Marlas. The latter sold his half share to respondent No. 1. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents restraining them from interfering in his possession. It was alleged by the plaintiff that previously his mother Amrit Kaur was in possession of the property who transferred the possession in his favour and executed an affidavit admitting his possession. It was further alleged that the plaintiff had been in exclusive possession over the entire land for the last six years but taking advantage of sale deed, defendant-respondent No. 1 was threatening to interfere in his possession.

Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC was also filed. The trial court by order dated July 27, 1990 granted an ex-parte injunction restraining respondent No. 1 from taking possession of specific filed numbers except in due course of law till further orders. The application was contested by the defendants. It was alleged that respondent No. 2 not only transferred his ownership right in respect of his share in the joint holding but he had also transferred physical possession in favour of respondent No. 1. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the parties and appraising the material brought before it, by order dated January 3, 1990 ordered that respondent No. 1 would maintain status quo regarding Rectangle 359, filed No. 21/22-11), 22/2 (2-13 and would take recourse to due profess of law for getting possession of the remaining field numbers.

Feeling aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, respondent No. 1 preferred appeal which was partly accepted by the learned Additional District Judge. The appellate Court passed the following order on April 18, 1991 :-

"The plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the suit land till the disposal of the suit. The part of the impugned order whereby the learned lower court directed defendant No. 1 to take recourse to due process of law for getting possession of the remaining field numbers is set aside."

This is how the present revision came to be filed by the plaintiff-petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was nothing on the record to show that the affidavit of his mother, who was recorded to be in possession of the property, was false. He further contended that there was no evidence to show that respondent No. 1 was in possession.

Counsel for the parties have been heard. The suit was filed as back as on July 26, 1990 and is pending final disposal for the last more that three and half years. The main grouse of the petitioner is that while partly accepting the appeal, learned Additional District Judge, directed the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 to maintain status quo in respect of whole of the suit land, which could not be done. The order of status quo passed by the lower appellate Court is existing for the last more than two and half years. After considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and that the order of status quo ordered by the court below is existing for the last more than two and half years, and in the interest of justice I feel that instead of deciding this revision on merits, the trial Court should be directed to dispose of the suit within a time frame. Accordingly, this revision is disposed of with the following directions :-

The trial Court shall grant two opportunities each to the plaintiff and the defendants for the their evidence;

The suit shall be finally disposed of as expeditiously as possible but net later than September 30, 1994 ; and

Till the decision of the suit, the order dated April 18, 1991 of the appellate Court shall continue.

There will, however, be no order as to costs.