Saroj Rani vs Dharam Singh and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—Plaintiff has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing judgment dated 18.09.2013 (Annexure P-14) passed by the lower Appellate Court. Case of the plaintiff-petitioner is that she is cosharer in possession of the suit land along with other cosharers. Defendants have no right to get the suit land allotted in their names. The revenue entries, if any, in favour of the defendants are illegal and null and void. The plaintiff by moving application claimed temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over the suit land during pendency of the suit.

Defendants no. 6 to 11 and 14 contested the suit and application for temporary injunction and pleaded that vide consolidation scheme of the year 1995, which had attained finality up to Hon''ble Supreme Court, the suit land was allotted to Jai Singh etc. who were also delivered possession thereof. They sold their share to Parmjit Kaur and delivered possession to her. Contesting defendants are now in possession of the suit land.

Learned trial Court vide order dated 30.07.2013 (Annexure P-12) allowed the plaintiff''s application for temporary injunction and restrained the defendants from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over the suit land except in due course of law. However, appeal against the said order preferred by defendants no. 6 to 9 has been allowed by learned lower appellate Court vide impugned judgment (Annexure P-14) and consequently application filed by plaintiff for temporary injunction stands dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed this revision petition to challenge the said judgment.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that consolidation scheme of 1995 has not been implemented. The contention is untenable because no such plea appears to have even been taken by the plaintiff in the plaint. On the contrary, the plaintiff pleaded that defendants had no right to get the suit land allotted in their names. It would depict that suit land was allotted to defendants'' predecessors in the consolidation scheme of 1995. It was also pleaded that revenue entries in favour of defendants, if any, are illegal and null and void. On the other hand, it is specific stand of the contesting defendants that the suit land was allotted to their predecessors. It is also apparent that the suit land has not been allotted to the plaintiff in the aforesaid consolidation scheme of 1995 which has admittedly attained finality upto Hon''ble Supreme Court. There is no material on record to depict that the said consolidation scheme has not been implemented nor there is any pleading in this regard. It is thus apparent that the plaintiff prima facie has no right, title or interest in the suit land nor she is in possession of the suit land. In view of the aforesaid, the plaintiff is not entitled to temporary injunction asked for. She has miserably failed to make out the three necessary ingredients of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury for grant of temporary injunction. Plaintiff by filing the suit wants to undo the consolidation scheme of 1995 which has already attained finality upto Hon''ble Supreme Court. In spite thereof, the plaintiff has started this second round of litigation without any basis. Resultantly, I find that temporary injunction has been rightly declined to the plaintiff by the lower Appellate Court. Impugned judgment of the lower Appellate Court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. However, nothing observed hereinbefore shall be construed as expression of opinion on merits of the suit.