DHANPAT Vs. BHAGWAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants' revision petition against the appellate order of the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon dated July 4, 1978 whereby he dismissed their application for vacation of ex parte stay order granted by the Senior Subordinate Judge, with enhanced appellate powers while admitting the appeal of the plaintiffs for hearing against the order of the trial Subordinate Judge, dated June 7, 1978 vacating the ex parte ad interim injunction granted earlier by him in favour of the plaintiffs.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the learned Additional District Judge has acted arbitrarily in confirming the ex parte order of injunction as he has ignored all the well-established considerations that go in for determining the grant or refusal of ad interim injunction.

(3.) The contention on behalf of the petitioners is to be viewed in the light of certain admitted facts. These are that petitioners and the plaintiff-respondents have purchased the land from the same owner - the petitioners purchasing their land in point of time prior to the plaintiff-respondents. The land of the original owner from whom both the parties have purchased the land abutted on a road. The petitioners, after purchasing the land from the owner, had access to the said road through the land of the original owner prior to the purchasing of the land by the plaintiff-respondents. The land purchased by the plaintiff-respondents fell between the land of the petitioners and the road. After the plaintiff-respondents purchased the land in question, they denied to the defendant-petitioners any access to the road through their land. That led the defendant-petitioners to approach the Director of Consolidation of Holdings, under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the grant of a path for their land. The Additional Director of Consolidation of Holdings, exercising powers under Section 42 of the Act, vide his order dated August 4, 1977, allowed the said application and granted the path to the petitioners. By the same very order the Additional Director compensated the plaintiff-respondents by allotting to them from the land of the defendants an area equal to that of the said path. The validity and legality of that order was challenged by the plaintiff-respondents vide civil suit No. 341/1977 which was dismissed by the trial Court on August 27, 1977. Thereafter the plaintiff-respondents challenged the legality of the said order of the Additional Director of Consolidation in Civil Writ No. 673/1978 which was dismissed by this Court on March 15, 1978 with the following observations :-