Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 131 (PNJ)

Shamsher Singh v. Chamkaur Singh

2011-01-13

RAM CHAND GUPTA

body2011
JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral):- The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 25.08.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Ferozepur and order dated 15.11.2010 passed by learned District Judge, Ferozepur allowing application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 restraining the present petitioners from interfering in the possession of the respondents in the land in dispute comprised in Khasra No.96min, Khewat No.151, Khatauni No.217. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned orders passed by learned trial Court as well as learned appellate Court vide which the application for ad-interim injunction filed on behalf of respondents-plaintiffs was allowed and present petitioners-defendants were restrained from dispossessing respondents-plaintiffs from the land in dispute except in due course of law during the pendency of the suit. 3. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision are that, respondents-plaintiffs had been cultivating the land in dispute as Gair Maurusi since the year 1984 under petitioners-defendants and that however, they intend to dispossess them from the land in dispute forcibly. Alongwith the suit an application for ad-interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC was also filed by respondents-plaintiffs. Learned trial Court while relying upon entries in the revenue record i.e. Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari allowed the application vide impugned order dated 25.08.2009 and restrained the present petitioners-defendants from dispossessing the respondents-plaintiffs from the land in dispute except in due course of law during the pendency of the suit. Appeal filed by the present petitioners-defendants against the said order was also dismissed by learned District Judge, Ferozepur. 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants that they are true owner of the land in dispute and that merely on the ground that respondents-plaintiffs are claiming possession over the land in dispute on the basis of entries of Gair Maurusi in their names in the revenue record, it cannot be said that respondents-plaintiffs are owners-inpossession of the land in dispute as they have failed to produce any other evidence on the point. Hence, it is contended that no injunction can be granted in favour of respondents-plaintiffs against petitioners-defendants who are true owner of the land in dispute. Hence, it is contended that no injunction can be granted in favour of respondents-plaintiffs against petitioners-defendants who are true owner of the land in dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants has relied upon 2006(4) RCR(Civil) 457, Raj Pal v. State of Haryana, 2003(3) RCR(Civil) 566, Jit Singh v. Sardara Singh, 2001(1) RCR(Civil) 556, Krishan Lal v. Gram Panchayat, 2006(1) RCR 138, Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner, [2009(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2286] : 2009(3) PLR 432, Sukhwant Singh v. Divisional Forest Officer and another and 2006(1) PLR 749, Chand Singh(Dead) through Lrs. V. Gangadhar. 5. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs that at this stage prima facie case is to be seen and that respondents-plaintiffs have been able to show prima facie case by producing entries in the Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari since the year 1984 that they are in possession of the land in dispute as Gair Maurusi and petitioners-defendants are trying to dispossess them forcibly. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the present proceedings they tried to get the Khasra Girdawari entries changed without taking legal proceedings for taking possession of the land in dispute from the respondents-plaintiffs. 6. Law is well settled that at this stage, prima facie case, balance of convenience and the fact that as to whether irreparable loss would be caused to the respondents-plaintiffs if ad-interim injunction is not granted, are to be seen. As is clear from the impugned orders passed by both the courts below, respondents-plaintiffs have been able to show prima facie case in their favour by producing copies of Jamabandis and Khasra Girdawaris showing their possession over the land in dispute as Gair Maurusi since the year 1984. The present petitioners-defendants had tried to get the said entries changed with the help of revenue officials. Both the courts below have only ordered for restraining the petitioners-defendants from dispossessing the respondents-plaintiffs from the land in dispute except in due course of law. Hence, balance of convenience also lies in favour of respondents-plaintiffs. An irreparable loss would be caused to the respondents-plaintiffs if petitioners-defendants are permitted to dispossess the plaintiffs from the land in dispute forcibly. Both the courts below have only ordered for restraining the petitioners-defendants from dispossessing the respondents-plaintiffs from the land in dispute except in due course of law. Hence, balance of convenience also lies in favour of respondents-plaintiffs. An irreparable loss would be caused to the respondents-plaintiffs if petitioners-defendants are permitted to dispossess the plaintiffs from the land in dispute forcibly. Learned District Judge, Ferozepur in his order has rightly placed reliance upon Walter Louis Franklin (dead) through LRs v. George Singh (dead) through LRs, 1997(2) RCR(Civil) 41 while coming to the conclusion that ad-interim injunction regarding possession can be granted even against the true owner and true owner cannot dispossess a person who is in legal possession except in due course of law. At this stage the legal possession of the land in dispute is with respondents-plaintiffs being Gair Maurusi as per Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari. Moreover, it is a matter of evidence to be decided at the final stage of the case regarding nature of possession of respondents-plaintiffs. 7. Law has been well settled in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147 by Hon’ble Apex Court that mere error of fact or law cannot be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. This Court can interfere only when the error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. 8. In view of aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that discretion exercised by both the courts below by granting ad-interim injunction in favour of respondents-plaintiffs is in anyway arbitrary or illegal or some material irregularity has been committed by learned Courts below or grave injustice or gross failure of justice has been occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. 9. There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. ------------0.S.L.0------------