Ram Bilash vs Hanuman

T. H.B. Chalapathi, J.—This revision is directed against the order of the learned District Judge. Narnaul, dated 22.5.98.

The plaintiff is the petitioner. He filed a suit for possession of the property by way of partition in the suit. He filed an application for temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit restraining the defendants from making any construction and also using the well located in the suit property. The said application was contested by the defendants contending inter alia that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/6th share in the suit property and that the well was constructed jointly y the co-owners who contributed for the construction of the well jointly and that the defendants also obtained the electricity connection. The trial Court granted temporary injunction as prayed for. On appeal by defendant No. 1, the appellate Court directed the defendants not to raise any construction and get any trees standing on the suit land. In regard to the joint well, it vacated the injunction granted by the trial Court. Hence, the plaintiff filed this revision.

It is not disputed before me now that the well is joint, to which the parties are entitled in the property, is a matter to be decided in the suit. The appellate Court is, therefore, justified in vacating the injunction in regard to the use of water from the joint well since the water is necessary for irrigating the land. It cannot be said that the learned District Judge, Narnaul, has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. When it is not disputed that the District Judge has jurisdiction to pass the order, this Court will not interfere with the same in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction u/s 115, CPC. Reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. and Another, Balanagar Vs. Ajit Prasad Tarway,

In this view of the matter, the revision is dismissed.