Swaran Singh vs Gopal Dass and Others

Sat Pal, J.—This petition has been preferred against the order dated 24.10.1997 passed by Additional District Judge, Kaithal. By the aforesaid order, learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal has upheld the order dated 9.5.1997 passed by the learned trial Court by which application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was allowed.

Mr. Bajaj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that both the courts below have not appreciated correctly the documents placed on record and have inadvertently come to prima-facie conclusion that balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff. He further submits that the plaintiff has himself admitted that the possession of the suit land was delivered to the defendants and keeping in view the admission of the plaintiff, the trial Court should not have granted the interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff. I however, do not find any merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

In the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, it has been stated that the alleged agreement of sale dated 12th February, 1994 has been found to be a forged document as per report received from FSL Madhuban and criminal proceedings were initiated at the instance of the plaintiff. It has further been stated that the entries in the revenue record were in favour of the plaintiff but during the pendency of the suit these entries were got corrected by the defendants in their favour vide order dated 18th June, 1997 passed by Assistant Collector-II Grade, Kaithal, which has also been stayed by the Appellate Authority. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the learned Appellate Court has correctly come to the prima-facie conclusion that the plaintiff should be granted interim injunction to safe-guard the interest of the plaintiff. I do not find any infirmity and illegality in the well-reasoned order passed by the learned lower Appellate Court. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove shall have no bearing on the merit of the case.