JUDGMENT Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.:-In this revision petition filed by the defendants under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, a prayer has been made for setting aside orders dated 10.6.2005 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Safidon and dated 3.10.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jind on an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) by the plaintiff-respondent. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming that he is the owner of the plot in dispute on the basis of a gift deed dated 11.9.1997 executed by the Gram Panchayat in his favour. The plaintiff further claimed that mutation No. 709 in which the name of the plaintiff has been reflected in the column of ownership and possession has been entered in his name. Along with the plaint, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC seeking ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit had also been filed. 3. The trial court after considering the matter, allowed the application for ad interim injunction and restrained the defendant petitioners from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff vide order dated 10.6.2005. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the same vide order dated 3.10.2006. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner-defendant No.1 had earlier filed a suit in 1999 against the plaintiff-respondent and Gram Panchayat for permanent injunction wherein defendant No.1 was held to be in possession of the property and the plaintiff-respondent was restrained from interfering in his possession. Learned counsel, thus, submitted that in view of the earlier judgment dated 28.9.2002 between the parties wherein petitioner/defendant No.1 was held to be in possession and injunction was granted in his favour, no interim injunction could have been granted by the courts below and failure of justice has occasioned by virtue of the grant of injunction in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Amarendra Komalam and another v. Usha Sinha and another,[ 2005 (2) Law Herald (P&H) 550 (SC) and the judgment of this Court in Amarjit Kaur v. Sadhu Singh and others, [2006(1) Law Herald (P&H) 619] : 2006 (1) RCR (Civil) 741 in support of this argument. 5.
Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Amarendra Komalam and another v. Usha Sinha and another,[ 2005 (2) Law Herald (P&H) 550 (SC) and the judgment of this Court in Amarjit Kaur v. Sadhu Singh and others, [2006(1) Law Herald (P&H) 619] : 2006 (1) RCR (Civil) 741 in support of this argument. 5. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff-respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the property in dispute in both the suits is different and the property in the present suit has been given to the plaintiffrespondent by the Gram Panchayat by gift deed and entry in that regard had also been entered in the revenue record in the column of ownership and possession. Learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiffrespondent has been in possession of the property in dispute and all the three essential ingredients, i.e., prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss to the plaintiff-respondent are fully satisfied in the present case and the courts below have, thus, rightly granted injunction in his favour. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners. The trial court while granting injunction to the plaintiff-respondent noticed that mutation No. 709 has been sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff in which the name of the plaintiff has been reflected in the column of ownership and possession and the authenticity of this document could not be successfully impeached by the defendants. It was further noticed that the number regarding the identity of the suit property which was subject matter of earlier suit has not been mentioned in the written statement and in the judgment and decree dated 28.9.2002 and on that basis it is concluded that the identity of the suit property in the present suit does not appear to be same. Thus, prima facie, holding the plaintiff-respondent to be the owner in possession on the basis of gift deed executed by the Gram Panchayat, ad interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. On appeal, the said order has been affirmed by the lower appellate Court.
Thus, prima facie, holding the plaintiff-respondent to be the owner in possession on the basis of gift deed executed by the Gram Panchayat, ad interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. On appeal, the said order has been affirmed by the lower appellate Court. The Apex Court in Amarendra Komalam’s case (supra) and this court in Amarjit Kaur’s case (supra) have held that an issue already settled in a suit between the same parties in respect of certain subject matter cannot be allowed to be raised again between the very same parties in regard to the same subject matter by a different suit. The said proposition of law is well recognized. However, as noticed above, the petitioners have not been able to establish that the identity of the property in the two suits is the same and, therefore, the said judgments have no applicability on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. In view of the above, finding no merit in this revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court is directed to decide the suit expeditiously. Nothing observed herein shall be taken as an expression on the merits of the case. ———————————-