Dinesh vs Satyavir

L.N. Mittal, J.—Defendant Dinesh has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 7.12.2012, Annexure P/1 passed by the trial court thereby granting temporary injunction in favour of respondent-plaintiff Satyavir Singh and assailing judgment dated 28.1.2013 Annexure P/2 passed by appellate court thereby dismissing appeal of defendant against order Annexure P/1. Case of the plaintiff is that he is owner in possession of the suit land measuring 8 kanals having purchased it vide sale deed dated 26.8.2009 from Birmati and Munish who had purchased the same from Om Pati vide sale deed dated 3.7.2008. The plaintiff has obtained necessary permission for installation of Motor Sprit/High Speed Diesel retail dealership outlet (in short, Petrol Pump) from Indian Oil Corporation and District Magistrate, but the defendant-petitioner without any right, title or interest in the suit land threatened to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and threatened to obstruct the installation of petrol pump therein. The plaintiff in the suit claimed permanent injunction restraining the defendant from doing so and by separate application, claimed temporary injunction to the same effect during pendency of the suit.

The defendant-petitioner resisted the suit and the application for temporary injunction and also made counter claim alleging that he is adopted son of Ajit Singh since deceased and on his death, he inherited the suit land along with Om Pati widow of Ajit Singh and the suit land is coparcenary property and sale deed by Om Pati widow of Ajit Singh in favour of Birmati and Munish and sale deed by them in favour of plaintiff are mere paper transactions and not binding on the defendant.

Courts below have allowed the plaintiff''s application for temporary injunction and the defendant-petitioner stands restrained from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and from creating any hindrance in installation of petrol pump during pendency of the suit. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has filed this revision petition.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that if the petitioner succeeds in counter claim or in the separate suit instituted by the petitioner, his rights would be defeated if the plaintiff succeeds in installing petrol pump in the suit land.

Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submitted that if the petitioner succeeds in the court in his counter claim or in his suit, the respondent-plaintiff would not claim any right on the basis of installation of petrol pump in the suit land and relief granted to the petitioner by the court would be honoured. Consequently, grievance advanced by counsel for the petitioner stands redressed.

Otherwise, the petitioner has filed suit against Om Pati etc. on 28.1.2009 whereas Om Pati had already sold the suit land prior to it vide sale deed dated 3.7.2008. Consequently, the sale deed by Om Pati in favour of Birmati etc. is not hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. The plaintiff claims to be owner in possession of the suit land having purchased it vide registered sale deed dated 26.8.2009 from vendees of Om Pati. Om Pati is admittedly widow of Ajit Singh who was admittedly owner in possession of the suit land. Claim of the petitioner that he is adopted son of Ajit Singh is yet to be established. In the aforesaid circumstances, temporary injunction has been rightly granted by the courts below to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has made out necessary ingredients for grant of temporary injunction i.e. prima face case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury. Counsel for the respondent stated that petrol pump has already been installed although counsel for the petitioner stated that installation of the petrol pump is still in progress. Be that as it may, the plaintiff is entitled to temporary injunction as prayed for. Impugned orders of the courts below do not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is meritless and is accordingly dismissed. However, nothing observed hereinbefore shall be deemed to be expression of opinion on merits of the suit.