Brij Kishore vs Deepak and Others

G.C. Garg, J.—Plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction from interfering with their possession or dispossessing them from the suit land

as detailed in the plaint. Plaintiffs also moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking ad interim

injunction. This application was opposed by the defendant by filing the reply. However, the trial Court by an order dated 15.12.1993 allowed the

application and restrained the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs during the pendency of the suit. Defendant-Brij Kishore

feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court filed an appeal which was assigned to the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, Gurgaon.

The learned Addl. District Judge, Gurgaon by his order dated 13.12.1994 dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision at the instance of defendant

Brij Kishore.

This revision petition was admitted in the presence of learned counsel for the parties on 25.7.1995 and order of status quo was passed. Further

proceedings before the trial Court were also stayed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are vendees from Jai Narain and at the time of sale, the possession of suit land

was handed over to them after revoking licence of Kanshi Ram, one of the plaintiffs.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the judgments of Courts below I am of the opinion that this contention of learned

counsel for the petitioners has no merit. Learned trial Court in paragraph 9 of the order has recorded as under :-

In the written statement, defendants have not disputed the possession of Sh. Kanshi Ram ever since the time of consolidation. However, it is

pleaded by defendant No. 2 that the suit land was sold by defendant No. l to him vide a registered sale deed dated 25.5.1992 and at that time

defendant No. 1 had handed over him the possession of suit land by earlier revoking licence of Kanshi Ram. This plea of defendant No. 2 appears

to be prima facie false because there is no document to the effect that possession was ever handed over by late Sh. Kanshi Ram or the plaintiffs to

Sh. Jai Narain. Even the Khasra Girdawari placed on file by the plaintiffs w.e.f. 23.10.1986 4.4.1992 shows the possession of Sh. Kanshi Ram

over the suit land.

This finding of learned trial court has been affirmed by learned Additional District Judge. Moreover, no document has been placed on record

which may show that actual possession of land in dispute was handed-over to the defendant-petitioner at the time of execution of sale deed or

otherwise. No revenue entry has also been produced in that behalf. Rather on reading of written statemerit, as noticed by learned trial Court there

is clear indication that the possession was with Kanshi Ram. I thus see no ground to interfere with the findings in exercise of jurisdiction u/s 115 of

Code of Civil Procedure. Dismissed.

Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 21.7.1998.

It is further directed that trial Court shall dispose of the suit as early as possible preferably within one year after affording not more than 3

opportunities to each of the parties for their respective evidence at short intervals.