Parshotam Singh vs Babu Ram

R.N. Mittal, J.—This revision petition has been filed by the defendants against the order of the District Judge, Hoshiarpur dated 13th November, 1985.

Briefly the facts are that Babu Ram plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration and injunction alleging that he was an occupancy tenant under the defendants since 1949 and that they were trying to dispossess him forcibly. He further stated that by virtue of the provisions of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act he had become owner of the property. He also filed an application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for granting adinterim injunction that the defendants be restrained from taking forcible possession of the property during the pendency of the suit.

The defendants contested the suit and inter alia pleaded that the plaintiff was inducted as a tenant ghair marusi in 1952. Thereafter they instituted a petition for his ejectment in 1976 before the revenue authorities. He was finally ordered to be ejected by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 3rd June, 1985. During those proceedings he did not claim that he was an occupancy tenant and had become owner by virtue of the Act.

The trial Court granted adinterim stay as prayed for by the plaintiff. The defendants went up in appeal before the District Judge who affirmed that order. They have come up in revision to this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged that the plaintiffrespondent did not take any plea before the revenue authorities that he had occupancy rights in the land and had become owner thereof. The litigation regarding ejectment was started as far back as 1976 and he was finally ordered to be ejected by the Financial Commissioner in June, 1985. Now he has filed the present suit on frivolous grounds and obtained an injunction order. He further contends that he is not entitled to the adinterim injunction in view of the aforesaid circumstances.

I have duly considered the argument and find substance therein. It is well settled that an adinterim injunction can be granted to a petitioner if he has got prima facie case in his favour; if the Court is satisfied that irreparable injury would be caused to him and that balance of convenience is in his favour. If the aforesaid tests are applied to the present case, in my view, the plaintiffrespondent was not entitled to the adinterim injunction prayed for. As already mentioned above, the respondent contested the application for ejectment filed by the petitioners and there he did not take any plea that he was an occupancy tenant in the land. He has also failed to show from any revenue record that he was entered as such therein. The revenue authorities, after considering the merits of his case, ordered his ejectment. In the circumstances it cannot be held that he has got a prima facie case in his favour. Further I am of the view that if in pursuance of an order of an Authority any one is ejected, no irreparable injury will be deemed to have been caused to him. The balance of convenience is also not in his favour. By granting an injunction the Courts have restrained the petitioners from prosecuting the proceedings of execution. Such an injunction normally is not granted. If the petitioner are restrained from executing the order of the revenue authorities, greater mischief will be caused to them.

The view taken by the Court, in my opinion, is perverse and the order passed by it is likely to cause manifest injustice to them. The Courts below have thus acted with material irregularity in granting the injunction. Consequently I accept the revision petition with costs, set aside the order of the Courts below and dismiss the application for injunction. Costs Rs. 400/.