H RUDRAMUNIYAPPA Vs. SECRETARY SHIVAGANGA MANDAL PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under Section 115 of CPC arises from the judgment and order dated 12.1.1994 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore, in M A. 108/92-arising out of an order dated 29 7 1992 passed by the Munsiff, Nela mangala, rejecting the interim relief application 1 A 1 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC,-allowing the appeal, setting aside the order of the trial Court dt. 29.7.1992, and granting temporary injunction order in favour of the present opposite party in the revision petition i.e, in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that, the respondent in his capacity as the Secretary of Shivaganga Mandal, filed the suit against the revision petitioners for a decree for permanent injunction with the allegation to the effect that the land belongs to the Government and the Panchayat is entitled to manage the affairs of that land and the Panchayat has authorised him to file the suit for injunction He asserted that the Government land being in his possession and the defendant is intending to tresspass so the defendant be restrained by decree for permanent injunction from committing tresspass thereof as well as from interfering with the possession of the Government land Along with the plaint, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 of CPC with an allegation almost to the same effect Learned trial Court by its order dated July 29, 1992, rejected the application holding that the suit land belongs to the Government and the RTC and Pahani extract also shows that it to be Government land. It has further observed that the Mandal Panchayat is a local body constituted by the Government and unless the plaintiff had been properly authorised to file the suit, plaintiff has no authority to maintain the suit It held that the plaintiff has not made out any prima facie case and the balance of convenience is not in his favour. It has further observed that the documents produced by the defendant show that the suit schedule property was once leased in favour of the defendant and the subsequent Haraj Histihar was stayed and rejected the application I.A.I, for temporary injunction Feeling aggrieved from the judgment and order of the trial Court, plaintiff preferred M A No 108/92. The Appellate Court considered the materials on record and observed that the order of the trial Court was perverse and capricious and if the defendant is permitted to interfere with the suit property the maintenance of The order passed by the trial Court will be prejudicial to the interest of Government and plaintiff. If injunction order is not granted, defendant will definitely occupy the property and dispossess the plaintiff and there will be irreparable loss as such plaintiff is entitled to temporary injunction order and thus allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the trial Court and granted the injunction as prayed Feeling aggrieved from the order of the Appellate Court, the defendant has come up in revision under Section 115 CPC.

(3.) I have heard Sri A V Gangadharappa, learned counsel for the revision petitioner