ISHWAR DAYAL Vs. ATMA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been directed against the order of the appellate Court granting injunction in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendants b which he has been restrained from raising any construction over the passage towards the North of the Plaintiff 's plot till the decision of the suit. The application for injunction was dismissed by the trial Court but in appeal the injunction has been granted. The Defendant has come up in revision petition.

(2.) May be an equally balanced judgment has been rendered by the trial Court by declining the application for injunction, this Court after reading the averments made in the plaint is of the considered view that during the pendency of the suit the grant of injunction is a must in view of the pleadings of the Plaintiff. It has been specified in the plaint that the only means of egress and ingress to the plot of the Plaintiff/which was purchased by him from none else but the defendant himself was gali of 11 feet in width situated in front of the purchased premises and that the Plaintiff had been using the path in front of the purchased plot as the only means of egress and ingress. If the averments made ultimately in the plaint are substantiated by leading evidence, the rights of the Plaintiff are likely to be jeopardised in case the construction on the disputed rasta is allowed to be made by the Defendant. The Plaintiff is entitled to the grant of injunction, in View of this Court, oil this ground alone. The other arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, namely, that the grant of rasta in the sale deed of Angoori Devi and non -grant of any rasta in favour of other vandees, namely, Zile Singh, Ram Bhaj and the Petitioner, are the arguments which can be scrutinised at the time of deciding the main suit. Surely, such like submissions would not entitle the Defendant -Petitioner to raise construction on the disputed piece of land, during the pendency of suit. In any case, there is no error of jurisdiction and it cannot be said that there is any material irregularity in exercise of the jurisdiction in granting injunction in favour of the Plaintiff during the pendency of the suit.

(3.) In the light of the observations made above, the revision petition is found to be devoid of any force and it is consequently ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs. Nothing observed either by this Court or in the impugned order would mean any expression of opinion on the merits of the case. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court is directed to decide the main suit as expeditiously as it can and in any case the trial of the suit must be concluded within one year. It is stated by the counsel for the Petitioner that the next date fixed in the case is May 28, 1990. The date would stand preponed to January 29, 1990. A copy of this order would be given dasti to the counsel for the parties on payment of requisite copy charges.