SOHAN SINGH Vs. GURDAS CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar dated 5.10.1989 by which the injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff by the trial Court was vacated.

(2.) The facts which have given rise to the filing of the present revision petition are that the plaintiff revision-petitioner filed a suit, restraining the defendant, Gurdas Chand from alienating the suit land to anybody else and from dispossessing the plaintiff-petitioner from the disputed land pending the suit. The plaintiff claims to be in possession of the disputed land in pursuance of a sale deed dated 30-5-1986. The sale deed, according to the petitioner, was executed by Rur Singh in his favour. Upon entering into defence by way of filing of the written statement, it was averred by Gurdas Chand defendant No. 1 that there was an agreement of sale in his facour dated 19-5-1986 executed by Rur Singh defendant No. 2. Rur Singh did not execute the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1 which led to the filing of a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 19-5-1986 in which the plaintiff-petitioner was impleaded as defendant. It was averred that the suit was decreed, both against Rur Singh the original owner of the land and against the plaintiff. On the basis of these facts, it has been observed by the first appellate Court that defendant No. 1 was reaping the fruit of the decree passed in his favour and, therefore, the plaintiff-petitioner was not entitled to any injunction. In support of the argument, reliance was placed on Thakur Singh v. Jagat Singh and another,1985 2 PunLR 493 in which it has been held that if a party obtains a decree from the Court, it should not be deprived of the fruit thereof.

(3.) It has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner that his client is in possession of the disputed land in pursuance of the sale deed dated 30.5.1986. The factum of the plaintiff-petitioner being in possession of the disputed land is not disputed before me, but has been argued that since a decree has been passed against Rur Singh, the original owner of the land, as well as against the plaintiff, no injunction can be granted in a second suit and that the previous decree would be res judicata. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is no merit in the revision petition. It has always been a well settled principle of law that a party is entitled to reap the fruit of the decree and that its execution should not be stayed in another suit. Admittedly, the plaintiff did not file an appeal against the decree passed by the trial Court to which he was a party. He did not file any application for setting aside the decree either by averting that he did not engage the counsel who represented him before the Court. In view thereof, the execution of the decree passed in favour of Gurdas Chand cannot be stayed by granting an injunction in a subsequently instituted suit, challenging the decree passed in the previous suit. In the light of the observations made above, the revision petition is devoid of any merit and is ordered to be dismissed, with no order as to costs.