Harchand vs Murti Dadu Dial and others

S.S. Dewan, J.

Harchand petitioner filed a suit, giving rise to this petition, for declaration and also for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from dispossessing him from the land in dispute. Along with this suit he filed an application for adinterim injunction to the same effect.

The material averments leading to the suit were that an application for ejectment of the petitioner from the land in dispute was filed by Murti Dadu Dayal through its trustees before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act and the same was allowed. That order of the Assistant Collector was confirmed upto the Financial Commissioner. It was alleged in the plaint that the land in dispute was owned by Dadu Dayal Trust, and, as such, Murti Dadu Dayal had no right to start ejectment proceeding against the petitioner and, therefore, the ejectment orders passed against him were null and void. The trial Court declined the application for ad interim injunction on the ground that when a person pursues his legal remedy in a Court of law, may be to eject the plaintiff, he cannot by any stretch of reasoning to be said to threaten to dispossess or cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to the suit property. In support of this proposition, reliance was placed by the Courts below on a Single Bench decision of this Court in Madan Lal & Ors. v. Dil Singh, 1982 PLR 63, wherein it was observed as under :

"Obviously by pursuing the suit for ejectment, the vendees were neither threatening to dispossess the plaintiff nor to cause an injury to him in relation to the suit property because the threat or the injury necessary implies the commission of a wrongful act. When a person pursues his legal remedy in a Court of law, may be to eject the plaintiff, he cannot, by any stretch of reasoning be said to threaten to dispossess or cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to the suit property."

On appeal, the order of the trial Court was confirmed by the Additional District Judge, Narnaul, vide judgment dated June 13, 1984 and aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff has now come up in this Court.

The impugned order has been assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the same ground on which the Courts below had declined the prayer for adinterim injunction. I am unable to find any substance in the argument that the Courts below had acted illegally by not granting ad interim injunction to the petitioner during the pendency of the suit when the suit was for declaration and injunction pending trial. The learned counsel for the petitioner also cited Harbans Singh v. Nahar Singh, 1978 PLJ 137. On perusal, I find that the facts in that case are quite distinguishable and the ratio thereof is not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.

The principle enshrined in Madan Lal''s case (supra) applies to the facts of this case with full vigour. The Courts below had considered the entire matter on correct principle of law keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case. The respondent/landlord had been pursuing his legal remedy by seeking ejectment of the petitioner since 10.4.1971 and it would have been highly unjust if adinterim injunction was granted to the petitioner. Consequently, no ground is made out for interfering with the impugned orders and this petition is accordingly dismissed. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. The matter has already been delayed. The trial Court is directed to expedite disposal of the case. The record be sent back immediately.