AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 387 wordsJ.V. Gupta, J.
This revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Hissar, dated March 20, 1990, whereby the order of the trial Court directing status quo to be maintained was set aside and the plaintiffs were restrained from interfering with the possession of the defendant.
The trial Court found that it was difficult to find a prima facie case in any party. Both the parties claimed possession over the suit land on the basis of their respective revenue record. Proper order is to give the direction to both the parties to maintain status quo. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge found that the defendants were in continuous possession of the suit land and that they had every right to seek injunction against the plaintiffs. Consequently, the plaintiffs were restrained from interfering with the possession of the defendants.
The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that no such direction could be given by the lower appellate Court against the plaintiffs as there was no such application on behalf of the defendants. Moreover, the trial Court has granted status quo to be maintained as both the parties claimed possession over the suit land and the said order should not have been interfered with in appeal. In support of the contention, reliance has been placed on Ram Chander alias Ram Chand and others v. Harbhajan Singh and others, 1986 RRR 99 (P&H) : 1986 R.L.R. 176.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that no such relief could be granted to the defendants on an application under Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by the plaintiffs. Reference may be made to Ram Chander''s case (supra). At the time to motion hearing on August 21, 1990, it was ordered by this Court that let status quo regarding possession be maintained till further orders. The said order will continue till the final disposal of the suit. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. However, in order to expedite the hearing of the suit, it is directed that the parties will lead evidence at their own responsibility for which dasti summons may be given, if so desired, as contemplated under Order XVI rule 7A of the aforesaid Code.
Orders accordingly.