Krishan Kumar vs Sushil Kumar And Others

1 Impugned in this petition is an order dated 21.09.2019 passed by the Sub Judge (CJM), Rajouri (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') whereby it has modified its own order dated 07.01.2019 directing the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the suit land.

2 Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/ plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction on the ground that the petitioner/plaintiff is owner in possession of the land measuring 13 kanals, 14 marlas under Khasra No.310 and land measuring 18 kanals under Khasra No.311 situated at village Nagrota Tehsil Rajouri. Along with the suit, the petitioner/plaintiff also filed an application for interim relief.

3 After hearing the petitioner/plaintiff, the learned trial Court directed the parties to maintain status quo on spot with respect to the suit land. However, a liberty was granted to the defendants to approach the Court for modification/cancellation of the said order.

4 Being aggrieved by the order dated 07.01.2019,the defendantsfiled an application for modification of the said order before the trial Court.

5 It was submitted by the defendants that the suit land is in their cultivating possession and they being the co-owners, have harvested the Shatala crop in the suit land. It was further submitted that in case they are not allowed to sow the said crop, they will suffer loss. On the other hand, the petitioner/plaintiff contested the application aforesaid on the grounds mentioned in his objections and prayed for dismissal of the same.

6 After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court allowed the application and modified theorder dated 07.01.2019 allowing the applicants/defendants to sow the crop of Shatala with a direction to them to file an undertaking that they will not trespass upon the share of the petitioner/plaintiff and in case he succeeds in the suit, they will compensate for the same.

7 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

8 Order 39 Rule 4 CPC provides that when an interim order has been made ex parte without giving the party affected an opportunity of being heard, the aggrieved party is entitled to object to its continuance and to ask for its vacation or modification on any grounds available in law.

9 It is well settled that injunction is an interim discretionary relief granted pending adjudication of the suit. Discretion has to be exercised keeping in mind the principles governing grant of injunction. Appellate Court would not normally interfere with the exercise of discretion if the conclusion reached by the trial Court is based on the material on record.

10 From the perusal of order dated 07.01.2019, it reveals that the trial Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the suit land. However, liberty was granted to the defendants to approach the Court for modification of the said order. Thereafter, the defendants filed an application for modification of the said order on the ground that they, being the co-owners, had earlier also harvested the Shatala crop on the suit land and prayed that they be allowed to sow the said crop.

11 The trial Court, in my view, has rightly allowed the application aforesaid and modified its order dated 07.01.2019 allowing the defendants to sow the crop of shatala. Otherwise also, sowing of crop on the suit land will not prejudice the rights of the petitioner/plaintiff as it has been made clear in the said order that the defendants will not trespass upon the share of the petitioner/plaintiff and, in case, the plaintiff succeeds in the suit, the defendants will compensate him. Keeping the suit land in possession of defendants fallow during the pendency of suit, would benefit none, not to the plaintiff/petitioner.

12 Viewed thus, I do not find any infirmity in the order impugned. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed along with connected CM.