Lakhwinder Singh and Others vs Amrik Singh and Others

Jaswant Singh, J.—By filing the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, Plaintiff-Petitioners have prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 29.11.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Patiala whereby their application u/s 151 CPC for restoration of possession has been dismissed.

Brief facts of the case are that the Plaintiff-Petitioners filed a civil suit No. 19 dated 14.1.2009 for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants-Respondents from interfering or taking away the possession forcibly and illegally of the suit land described in the head note. Along with the civil suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC for temporary injunction was also filed.

Upon notice, the claim of the Plaintiffs-Petitioners was resisted by the Defendants-Respondents in the main suit as well as regarding the injunction application. After hearing both the sides, learned trial Court granted the interim injunction vide order dated 9.6.2009 (P.7).

Thereafter, it transpires that an application dated 22.7.2009 (P.11) under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC was filed by the Plaintiffs-Petitioners for initiating proceedings against the Defendants-Respondents for disobeying and committing the breach of the order dated 9.6.2009 passed by the learned trial Court. It is necessary to mention here that the said application is still pending adjudication with the learned trial Court. Thereafter, an application dated 13.2.2010 (P.12) u/s 151 CPC for restoration of the possession of the suit property was filed by the Plaintiffs-Petitioners and upon notice the same was opposed by the Defendants-Respondents by filing their reply dated 8.3.2010 (P.13). After hearing both the sides, the said application has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide the impugned order, hence the present revision petition.

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the paper book.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners argues that the learned trial Court has passed the interim injunction by way of detailed order dated 9.6.2009 and restrained the Defendants-Respondents from interfering or taking away the possession of the suit land forcibly and illegally from the Plaintiffs-Petitioners till the final decision of the suit but despite that the Defendants-Respondents have illegally and forcefully dispossessed the Plaintiffs-Petitioners thereby committing a contempt of court and as such the learned trial Court has wrongly rejected their prayer for restoration of possession while passing the impugned order dated 29.11.2010 and has grossly erred in law.

Learned Counsel in support of his case has cited the following judgments:

i) Ram Naresh v. State of U.P and Ors. 2011(1) CCC 344 (All)

ii) Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee v. Sumer Chand Saini 1999 (4) RCR 181 (P&H)

iii) Arjan Singh v. Punit Ahluwalia and Ors. 2008 (3) RCR (SC).

A perusal of reply dated 8.3.2010 (P.13) filed by Defendants-Respondents reveals that the Petitioners had also invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing a COCP No. 147 of 2010 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 27.1.2010. It further transpires that an FIR No. 234 dated 14.7.2009 was also registered against the Plaintiffs-Petitioners, which is pending in the court of JMIC, Patiala for interfering in the peaceful possession of the Defendants-Respondents and after passing of the interim injunction dated 9.6.2009 an application for correction of khasra girdawari was also made before the revenue authorities and the same has been accepted and the revenue record has been corrected in the name of Defendants-Respondents being in possession of the suit land and it was also submitted in the reply that there was no question of dispossessing the Plaintiffs-Petitioners illegally or forcefully.

The learned trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion by observing that the petition under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC is still pending and there is nothing on record to prove that the Plaintiffs-Petitioners have ever been dispossessed from the suit property after passing of the interim injunction dated 9.6.2009. This is a pure question of fact and no case is made out by the Plaintiffs-Petitioners that while invoking jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, this Court should come to a different conclusion as recorded by the learned trial Court and as such this Court is in fully agreement with the observations made by the learned trial Court.

The judgments cited by learned Counsel for the Petitioners are not applicable to the facts of the present case as the legal position emerged from all the judgments is that u/s 151 CPC, the Court has not only the power but a duty also in case of violation of injunction order granted by a Court and to restore back the same position as on the date of passing of the injunction order under its inherent jurisdiction but in the present case, the Plaintiffs-Petitioners have failed to prove that there is any disobedience of injunction order dated 9.6.2009 (P.7) and the Plaintiffs-Petitioners have ever been dispossessed after granting the interim injunction.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 29.11.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Patiala, however, it is directed that the learned trial Court shall decide the application filed by the Plaintiffs-Petitioners under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Disposed of.