Dharmender Kumar vs Gram Panchayat

Rajesh Bindal, J.—The plaintiff is before this Court aggrieved against the orders passed by the learned courts below, whereby his application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC for interim injunction during the pendency of the suit was dismissed.

Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking restrain against the respondent from dispossessing him from the plot in question. It was claimed that the petitioner and his brothers are the owners in possession thereof and the Gram Panchayat has no concern whatsoever with the plot in dispute. Along with the suit, an application for interim injunction was filed which was dismissed.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that once it is found that the petitioner is in possession of the property in dispute, even if he is a trespasser, he can be dispossessed only in due course of law.

However, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. Both the courts below have considered the contentions raised by the petitioner-plaintiff in great detail. It has been noticed that in the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, description of the property has not been given. In the plaint, the petitioner had not disclosed any khasra number of the suit property, whereas the respondent-defendant stated that the suit property is part of khasra No. 1694. To this stand of the respondent-defendant in the written statement, no replication was filed. As per jamabandi for the year 1998-99, khasra No. 1694 vests in the Gram Panchayat and further that the suit property is not situated within the abadi deh of the village. It had also been brought on record by the respondents-defendants that earlier also the petitioner-plaintiff had filed a suit for the same property and no relief was granted to him in that. The present suit was nothing else but abuse of process of law. Considering these facts on record and also observing that the petitioner-plaintiff had not approached the court with clean hands as he had not given true and correct particulars in the suit filed, the prayer made by him qua interim injunction was rejected.

With this material on record, where the petitioner does not have any right, title or interest in the property in his possession and is seeking injunction against the true owner, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below.

Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.