Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 563 (PNJ)

Kirti Uday Singh v. State of Haryana

2021-03-09

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI

body2021
Judgment Mr. Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, J.: (Oral) - The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for setting aside the order dated 30.10.2020 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Divn), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri as well as the order dated 7.1.2021 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri whereby an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC for grant of injunction to raise further construction and creating a third party right, has been rejected. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners-plaintiffs had filed a suit for physical vacant possession of a land in which the defendant No.2-Gram Panchayat have constructed a Community Hall and some other places but the suit for possession was filed on the basis of title which is still pending. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC was filed vide Annexure P-1, on 4.11.2019 seeking an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant No.2 from digging and picking the earth from the property of the plaintiffs-petitioners and for raising construction over the suit land during the pendency of the case. Thereafter reply of the application was filed by the defendants vide Annexure P-2 by claiming that the plaintiffs had no right, title or concern with the suit land where a Community Hall has already been constructed and the defendants have a right to raise further construction for the purpose of development work in the village. The learned trial Court while deciding the application on 30.10.2020 dismissed the same on the ground that in the land in question, construction has already been carried out and in case the Gram Panchayat of the defendant No.2 is restrained from doing any work for the benefits of the inhabitants of the village then it will cause an irreparable loss to the Gram Panchayat. Thereafter, the aforesaid order was assailed by filing the appeal by the petitioners-plaintiffs, which was also dismissed by the learned Lower Appellate Court. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for seeking possession of the land where construction has already been made. Thereafter, the aforesaid order was assailed by filing the appeal by the petitioners-plaintiffs, which was also dismissed by the learned Lower Appellate Court. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for seeking possession of the land where construction has already been made. The suit is still pending and it is yet to be decided as to whether the petitioners-plaintiffs are entitled to possession of the land in question based upon the title or not. It has also come on record in the orders of the learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court that on the suit land, there is already in existence of a Community Hall, Government Middle School, Jalghar and residential properties of the employees of the Public Health as well as Vyayam Shala shed and, therefore, further development work in the suit land for the purpose of the benefits of the inhabitants of the village would not prejudice the rights of the petitioners-plaintiffs in view of the fact that it is yet to be decided in the suit as to whether the petitioners-plaintiffs are entitled for the possession of the land or not. Pendency of the suit itself cannot ipso-facto create any vested right in favour of the petitioners-plaintiffs in such a circumstances where the construction is already in existence. 5. In view of the above, no illegality or perversity can be found in the orders of the trial Court as well as of the learned Appellate Court. 6. Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed.