Balbir Singh vs Satbir Singh

Arun B. Saharya, C.J.—The petitioners are defendants in the suit for injunction filed by the respondents herein. They have challenged order dated September 21, 1992 made by the learned Lower Appellate Court., directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession of the land in dispute; and, to that extent, modifying the order dated September 9, 1992 passed by the learned trial Court vacating the ad-interim injunction granted on 4th July 1992 in favour of the plaintiffs in the suit.

The plaintiffs claim to have purchased the land in dispute from the co-sharers/owners by sale deeds dated July 23, 1992 and June 30, 1992. The defendants claim to be continuing in possession as gair marusi tenants. The dispute is in respect of possession of the land.

Along with the suit, the plaintiffs had filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, on which the trial Court had granted ex- parte ad-interim injunction by order dated 4.7.1992 restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs. After hearing the parties, this ex parte ad interim injunction order was vacated by the trial Court by order September 9, 1992, which has been modified by the lower Appellate Court in appeal by the impugned order dated September 21, 1992.

Both the Courts below have made certain prima facie observations on the facts and circumstances of the case on the basis of entries made from time to time in the revenue records. The parties are aggrieved by those observations. The observations made by the Courts below while disposing of the application for ad-interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, cannot be considered as conclusive findings on the facts and circumstances of the case. The same would necessarily have to be adjudicated upon merits after trial of the suit. The effect of the various entries made in the revenue records would also be the subject matter of determination in the suit.

In the given facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the rival claim of the parties, order of status quo in respect of actual physical possession of the land in dispute, would be an ideal arrangement till final disposal of the suit.

Learned counsel appearing for the parties confirming that there has been no change in the status or title of the parties, and no change has been brought about in actual physical possession of the land in dispute during the pendency of the revision petition. This is truly the purpose that is sought to be served by the impugned order of status quo made by the learned lower Appellate Court.

I find no illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the lower Appellate Court in making the impugned order.

The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.