Saroj Rani vs Pardeep Kumar

Permod Kohli, J.—This Revision is directed against the order dated 12.3.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge (Ad hoc) Fast Track Court, Muktsar rejecting the appeal of the present Petitioners who are Defendants in the suit, against the order dated 13.10.2006 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Malout granting injunction against the present Petitioners and in favour of the Respondents/Plaintiffs. In a suit filed by the Respondents/Plaintiffs for pennanent injunction, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was filed for protection of their possession. The trial court granted injunction in their favour vide the order dated 13.10.2006. The trial court found that the Plaintiffs have prima facie case, in view of the earlier judgment and decree dated 2.4.1991 passed in Civil Suit No. 1288 of 13.08.90 titled as Satpal v. Amarnath. The possession of the Respondents/Plaintiffs was accordingly protected by granting injunction in appeal was preferred by the Petitioners/Defendants in the Court of Additional District Judge (Ad hoc) Fast Track Court, Muktsar against the order dated 13.10.2006 passed by the trial court which came to be dismissed vide this impugned order dated 12.3.2007.

The only ground urged before me is that a Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 2.4.1991 relied upon by the courts below is pending before the High Court, and therefore, the findings are not finally concluded. Be that as it may, there is a final judgment with regard to the right or the Respondents as owners in possession. The plea of the Petitioners that they are co-sharers is yet to be established. Under the given circumstances, both the courts below have rightly granted interim injunction. I find no ground to interfere in the impugned order.

In view of the above, I find no merit in this Revision which is accordingly dismissed.