Dharam Singh vs Mahender Kumar and Others

Jaswant Singh, J.—Plaintiff No. 2 Petitioner has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the orders dated 20.1.2010 and 1.6.2010 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kosli and Additional District Judge, Rewari respectively whereby parties were directed to maintain status quo and the prayer of the Plaintiff No. 2 Petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for restraining the respondents/Defendants from interfering in their possession was declined.

Plaintiffs/Petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the Respondents from interfering into their peaceful possession and cultivation over the suit land comprised in Khewat No. 12 Khatoni No. 13, Rect. No. 7 Killa No. 20/1 (3-10) situated within the revenue estate of Village Sadhipur, Tehsil Kosli, Distt.Rewari. Alongwith the suit the Plaintiffs also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking interim injunction against the Defendants/Respondents. On the other hand the case of the Defendants Respondents was that the Plaintiffs/Petitioner were claiming themselves as tenants over the suit land and were not in cultivating possession. It was further claimed by the Defendants that the Plaintiffs were not paying any rent to the land owners as they have failed to produce any receipt issued by land owners regarding payment of rent. It was further the stand of the Defendants that though the Plaintiffs have claimed to be occupancy tenants since 26.1.1950 but they have not produced any document in support of their claim.

After hearing both sides the learned trial court vide order dated 20.1.2010 disposed of the application of the Plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and directed the parties to maintain status quo, which order was affirmed by the learned Additional Distt. Judge Rewari, vide order dated 1.6.2010. Hence the present revision petition.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that both the courts below have erred in law while granting interim injunction in view of the fact that Plaintiffs are in actual, physical and cultivating possession of the suit land. It is further submitted that both the courts below have erred in law in holding that at this juncture it cannot be said as to which party is in possession.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, I find no merit in the submissions raised by him.

The learned trial court while disposing of the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC has held that both parties are claiming possession over the suit property and that on the basis of documents placed on record, it could not be conclusively said as to which party was in possession. I am in agreement with the finding of the learned trial court that whenever the fact of possession remains in dispute the best course is to direct the parties to maintain status quo regarding the suit property till the final disposal of the case on its merits. Furthermore, the learned Additional Distt. Judge, while affirming the findings of the trial Court has found that there is no document on record to show that the Plaintiffs were in possession of the land as on 26.1.1950 as there is no document to show payment of rent to any person or payment of revenue to the State.

In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the Plaintiffs have failed to make out necessary ingredients for seeking the relief of interim injunction and as such no fault can be found with the impugned orders warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Dismissed.