Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 143 (PNJ)

Anand Jeewan v. Rajpal

2014-01-17

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2014
JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral):- The epitome of the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, respondent-plaintiffs Rajpal son of Basanta and others (for brevity “the plaintiffs”) have instituted the civil suit (Annexure P1) for a decree of declaration, possession and permanent injunction, along with the application (Annexure P2) for ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, restraining petitioners-defendants Anand Jeewan and others (for short “the defendants”) from alienating the suit land, in any manner, during the pendency of the suit. 2. Sequelly, the defendants contested the suit & stay application (Annexure P2), filed written statement, stoutly denied all the allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for its dismissal. 3. Taking into consideration the entire material on record, the trial Court accepted the injunction application (Annexure P2) filed by the plaintiffs and restrained the defendants from alienating the land in litigation or creating any further charge over it, by means of impugned order dated 7.1.2013 (Annexure P4). 4. Aggrieved thereby, the appeal (Annexure P5) filed by the defendants was dismissed as well, by the appellate Court, by virtue of impugned judgment dated 9.10.2013 (Annexure P6). 5. The petitioner-defendants still did not feel satisfied and have preferred the present revision petition, to challenge the impugned order and judgment of Courts below, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this context. 7. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this context. 7. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since neither there was any prima facie case nor balance of convenience were in favour of plaintiffs, so, the Courts below committed legal mistake to grant injunction of alienation against the defendants, is neither tenable nor the observations of this Court in case Smt. Sunita Jain and others v. Chander Kanta and others (1996-1) PLR 293 (P&H) wherein, it was observed that a mere challenge to the consent decree is no ground to grant injunction until and unless it was shown to the satisfaction of the Court that a prima facie case existed in favour of the plaintiffs, are at all applicable to the facts of the present case. 8. As is evident from the record that the plaintiffs claimed that they are very poor persons belonging to scheduled caste community and gram panchayat has allotted the plots to them, in pursuance of the scheme of the Government. Earlier, the predecessor-in-interest of the contesting defendants No.1 to 4 was shown to be in possession as occupancy tenant in the suit property and he had obtained occupancy rights, by way of order dated 22.11.1990 of Assistant Collector 2nd Grade. This order was set aside by the Collector, through the medium of order dated 25.6.1992 and the appeal filed against the order of Collector was dismissed as well, by the Commissioner, by means of order dated 21.12.1992. However, on the basis of wrong revenue entries made as per the order dated 22.11.1990 of Collector, which stands already set aside, now the defendants intend to forcibly disturb the plaintiffs and to alienate the land in dispute without any legal right. The plaintiffs, being allottees, are exclusive owners of the disputed land. On the contrary, the case of the defendants was that the matter of ownership is still pending in the High Court. Be that as it may, they were never declared owners by any Court till today. That means, the plaintiffs are bona fide allottees of plots by the gram panchayat, in lieu of government scheme, being poor persons and members of scheduled caste community. Be that as it may, they were never declared owners by any Court till today. That means, the plaintiffs are bona fide allottees of plots by the gram panchayat, in lieu of government scheme, being poor persons and members of scheduled caste community. Therefore, the contrary submissions of the learned counsel for petitioners ‘stricto sensu’ deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. 9. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that the trial Court has restrained the defendants only from alienating and creating any further charge, over the property in litigation, by virtue of impugned order (Annexure P4). To me, if they (defendants) were permitted to alienate the property in dispute, then, it would cause great prejudice to the case of plaintiffs and it will give rise to the multiplicity of the litigation, which is not legally permissible. 10. Not only that, the order of trial Court was upheld by the appellate Court, by means of impugned judgment (Annexure P6), which, in substance, is as under :- “As has come on record, is the fact that claim of occupancy tenancy rights of appellants/respondent stands dismissed today in finality till the orders of Commissioner dated 21.12.1992 and in another civil case titled as Raj Pal and Others Vs. Jagdish Naraina, respondents-plaintiffs were held in exclusive ownership of the suit property meaning thereby it has to be asserted that possession of appellants/defendants stands in the capacity of illegal possession today. Appellants-defendants have been blamed in the past for taking loan from the bank on the basis of certain documents which does not justify their ownership and possession in reference to the suit property. In order to stop multiplicity of litigations in future and to stop any misuse of any earlier order, already set aside by subsequent orders, on the part of appellants/defendants, the learned trial court has rightly found three ingredients of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money standing in favour of respondents/plaintiffs. Any further alienation of the suit property will not hinder merits of the present case itself and a party misguiding or concealing facts should be restrained by an injunction order, temporary or permanently. Furthermore, respondents-applicants have been allotted place by the gram panchayat. Any further alienation of the suit property will not hinder merits of the present case itself and a party misguiding or concealing facts should be restrained by an injunction order, temporary or permanently. Furthermore, respondents-applicants have been allotted place by the gram panchayat. The gift deed may not have come into force for non grant of possession but the land belonging to gram panchayat should not be misappropriated by any third person.” 11. Meaning thereby, both the Courts below have examined the matter in the right perspective and have concurrently recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant connection. Such order/judgment, containing valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as envisaged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless & until, the same are perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner-defendants, so, the impugned order and judgment deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 12. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 13. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of main suit, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition filed by petitioner-defendants is hereby dismissed as such. 14. Needless to mention that nothing observed here-in-above would reflect on the merits of the case, in any manner, during the trial as the same has been so recorded for the limited purpose of deciding the present revision petition.