Jai Pal and Another vs Gram Panchyat, V. Khukhni

G.C. Garg, J.—Plaintiff-petitioners filed a suit for declaration and also moved an application under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC for issuance of add interim injunction restraining the Defendant-Gram Panchayat from interfering in their possession. The authorities under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (for short ''the Act'') in a petition filed by the Gram Panchayat u/s 7 of the Act came to the conclusion that possession of the Plaintiffs was unauthorised, and consequently ordered their ejectment. Order of ejectment passed by the authorities under the Act have been challenged in the suit on various grounds. Trial Court by order dated 18.9.1995 declined the injunction primarily on the ground that civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit, after noticing that from the pleadings of the parties an issue reading as under, has already been framed:

Whether the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred u/s 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 to try and adjudicate upon the present suit? OPD

Appeal taken against the order of the trial Court was dismissed by the District Judge vide Order dated 23.3.1996 who also in his elaborate judgment primarily concluded that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and in that situation declined to grant the relief. Aggrieved thereby, the Plaintiffs have filed the present revision.

In response to notice, Defendant-respondent has put in appearance.

It is not disputed during the course of hearing that the Plaintiffs are in possession of the land in dispute and their possession has been held to be illegal and unauthorised. An issue, as already noticed above, relating to the jurisdiction of the civil Court to try the suit has also been framed. In the situation, I am of the opinion that interest of justice would be best served if status quo as to possession is ordered to be maintained during the pendency of the suit, subject to Petitioners furnishing security for mesne profits from the date of the suit till the disposal thereof, within one month from today and a further direction is given to the trial Court to treat the issue of jurisdiction, as preliminary issue and decide the same on the date already fixed which is stated to be May 24, 1996 or within a fortnight thereafter. It is so ordered. This has been done keeping in view the fact that counsel for the parties have taken a candid stand before me that no evidence is required to be produced on the issue of jurisdiction

With the above observations and directions, the revision stands disposed of.