Mange Ram and Another vs Dewak Ram and Another

B.S. Yadav, J.—The facts leading to the revision petition are that the present Respondents filed a suit claiming that they were in cultivating possession of the suit land and the Defendants had no connection with the same. They, therefore, prayed for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with their possession. In the suit the Plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC for ad interim injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with their possession over the suit land.

The Defendant contested the suit and pleaded that they had purchased the suit land in 1972 for constructing a Dharamsala in the memory of their father. It was also pleaded that the sale had been effected with the consent of the Plaintiffs and one Darya who was previously in occupation of the suit land alongwith the Plaintiffs. According to the Defendants, the Plaintiffs and said Darya had relinquished possession of the suit land in their favour and thereafter they made construction over the said property and also planted some trees. The Defendants also contested the Plaintiffs application for the grant of ad interim injunction.

The learned trial Court had first granted ex-parte ad interim injunction as prayed for. However, after hearing the parties it dismissed the Plaintiff''s application and vacated the ad interim injunction.

The Plaintiffs filed an appeal which was heard by learned District Judge, Sonepat. He, after consideration of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the Plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land as tenants and there was no evidence that they had relinquished their possession after the execution of the sale deed in favour of the Defendants. Consequently he accepted the appeal and granted ad interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiffs restraining the Defendants from interfering with the former''s possession over the suit land. Feeling dissatisfied the Plaintiffs have come to this Court in revision.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners tried to argue tie ease on merits. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents raised a priliminary objection to the effect that this Court can exercise revisional power only within the limitations laid down u/s 113 of the CPC and the present case is not one in which this Court should vary or set aside the impugned order. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners argued that the present case would fall u/s 111(1)(c) of the CPC as the lower Appellate Court has exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Except making a challenge to the conclusions arrived at by that Court on the basis of evidence available on the file, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has failed to show how that Court exercised the jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Even if the Court has committed any error in arriving at the conclusions, the impugned order cannot be interfered with while exercising revisional jurisdiction. In this respect reference may be made to The The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. and Another, Balanagar Vs. Ajit Prasad Tarway, , wherein it was remarked:

In our opinion the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the first appellate Court. It is not the conclusion of the High Court that the first appellate Court had no jurisdiction to make the order that it made. The order of the first appellate Court may be right or wrong; may be in accordance with law or may not be in accordance with law, but one thing is clear that it had jurisdiction to make that order. It is not the case that the first appellate court exercised its jurisdiction either illegally or with material irregularity. That being so, the High Court could not have invoked its jurisdiction u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

For the foregoing reasons I dismiss the present revision petition. However, considering the nature of the dispute and the purpose for which the Defendants are said to have purchased the property, the trial Court is directed to decide the case expeditiously and as far as possible within 6 months from today.

Revision petition dismissed.