MAHAVIR PRASAD Vs. JAGANNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS unfortunate civil revision is pending, for its fate to be decided after 10 years.

(2.) THE applicants have preferred this civil revision under section 115 of the Code Civil Procedure against an order of the Additional District Judge, Bhind, in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 37 of 1973 dated 17 -12 -1974. Non -applicant -plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 were granted a Patta on 20 -4 -1947 by Jagirdar with regard to the suit lands, and this very Jagirdar granted another Patta to the applicant/defendants on 20 -6 -1947 with regard to the suit land. The non -applicant/plaintiffs, thus, were issued the Patta prior to that of the defendant/applicants. The non -applicant -plaintiffs filed an application before the Tahsil Court for getting possession of the suit land, as they were illegally dispossessed by the other Party. Under section 328 of the Kanoon Mal, Gwalior, an interim order was passed, whereby non -applicants plaintiff were put in possession of the suit land. Later on, the application pending in the Tahsil Court was dismissed and the interim possession so given was ordered to be restored to the applicants -defendants. The case in the revenue Courts went up in upper hierarchy, but the fate was the same. When the applicants -defendants filed the execution for restoration of possession of the suit land in (he Tahsil Court, the non -applicant plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of their rights on the suit property and also prayed for a decree of perpetual injunction against the applicant -defendants, in the Court of Civil Judge Class II, Bhind. The suit land consists of survey numbers 15, 399, 418, 422, 403,446 and 448, total area being 15 bigha and 3 biswa, situate in village Seorpura, Tahsil and district Bhind The non -applicant plaintiffs also filed an application under Order 39, Rr.1 and 2, CPC praying for the issuance of temporary injunction restraining the defendant/applicants from taking forcible possession or interfering with their possession of the suit land till the final decision of the suit. Thus, he prayed for maintaining the status quo on the date of the filing of the suit. An ex parte temporary injunction was granted by the trial Court, but it was subsequently vacated on the ground that the execution of the decree of the revenue Court cannot be restrained. Against this order, the non -applicant plaintiffs filed an appeal in the Court of the additional District Judge, Bhind, who by the impugned judgment granted the temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by that order, the applicant defendants have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

(3.) SHRI R.K. Dixit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants, bas strenuously contended that the order passed by the revenue Court is in the nature of a decree and the revenue proceedings initiated for restitution of possession cannot be restrained by a temporary injunction. Shri H.D. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the non applicant plaintiffs, has repelled the submissions of Shri Dixit and contended that the present suit has been filed for declaration of title and that the non -applicant plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land on the date of the suit; hence, in the impugned judgment the appellate Court has correctly granted the temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs according to law.