KEWAL SINGH Vs. KANTI PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A civil suit for permanent injunction in respect of the land in dispute was filed by the plaintiff-respondent Kantipal against Kewal Singh and others. In the said suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') was filed by the plaintiff-respondent alleging therein that he is in cultivating possession of the suit land, but the revenue entries in the Jamabandi for the year 1975-76 depict wrong picture. Further, it is his case that in the year 1995, the legal heirs of Dig Pal raised claim on the basis of wrong entries in the revenue record, consequent whereupon, Subhash Chander had to file a suit for permanent injunction and declaration. In that suit, legal heirs of Yash Pal, Sat Pal and Dig Pal were declared as owners vide judgment and decree dated 19.2.1997 passed by the Court of Mrs. H.K. Randhawa, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar. It has been further stated that the plaintiff-respondent is cultivating the suit land through his agents, who are none else but defendent Nos. 9. to 11. Defendant Nos. 1 to 8, on the strength of wrong entries in the revenue record, threatened to interfere in his (plaintiff-respondent's) possession over the suit land.

(2.) THE application was contested by defendant Nos. 1 to 3, 5, 7 and 8, who in their reply raised preliminary objections that the suit is not maintainable in the present form; that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands; that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit; and that the suit is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code.

(3.) THE trial Court, by holding that prima facie case as well as balance of convenience is made out in favour of the plaintiff when he is co-owner in possession of the suit property and he will definitely suffer loss if the stay is not granted and is thrown out from the land in dispute, restrained defendant Nos. 1 to 8 from dispossessing the plaintiff forcibly from the suit land, except in due course of law, during the pendency of the suit, vide its order dated 23.9.1998.