Krishan Gopal vs Babu Ram and another

J.V. Gupta, J.—This petition is directed against the order of Additional District Judge. Karnal, dated November 22, 1988, whereby the order of the trial Court dated August 1, 1988, restraining the Defendant to interfere in possession of the Plaintiffs over the suit land was set aside.

The Plaintiffs Krishan Gopal and Babu Ram filed the suit for permanent injunction alleging that they were in possession of suit land and the Defendant had no right to title therein, but he was bent upon ousting them from the same in illegal manner. Along with the suit they also moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of the Civil Procedure. The same was resisted by the Defendant on the plea that the Plaintiffs had instituted the suit by concealing material facts from the Court and, thus, they were not entitled to any discretionary relief. He claimed that he had purchased the suit land in an open auction from the Tehsildar Sales cum-M.O. Karnal in five different auctions on April 18, 1988. According to him actual physical possession of the land was also delivered to him on May (Sic)1, 1988 vide report rozenamcha Nos. 326 to 330 and, thus, the Plaintiffs were left with no interest in the suit land.

The trial Court found that the Plaintiffs were never dispossessed from the suit land and, therefore, granted ad interim order of injunction against the Defendant. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that the view taken by the trial Court was not sustainable as it failed to appreciate the material placed on the file. According to the lower appellate Court it has to be presumed that the Managing Officer delivered actual physical possession of the suit land in favour of the Defendant on May 11, 1988 and, thus, the Plaintiffs stood dispossessed from the suit land in accordance with law prior to the institution of the suit Consequently ad interim injunction granted by the trial Court was vacated.

The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff-Petitioners submitted that the view taken by the lower appellate Court was wrong whereas the trial Court rightly found that the Plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land. According to the learned Counsel, the Plaintiffs could not be dispossessed forcibly by the Defendant.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this petition. The learned Additional District Judge after going through the record has given a firm finding that the Defendant was in possession of the land vide report rozenamcha dated May 11,1988, prior to the filing of the suit. That being so, the question of granting any ad interim injunction against the Defendant did not arise. In these circumstances I do not find any illegality in the impugned order as to be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, this petition fails and is dismissed with costs.

In order to expedite the hearing of the suit which was filed in the year 1986, it is directed that in case the parties are to produce any evidence, they will do the same at their own responsibility for which one opportunity be given to each party.