JAGJIT SINGH Vs. GURSHARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 14.11.1998 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hoshiarpur, who allowed the application of the plaintiffs-respondents under Order 23 Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure for the reasons given in para 4 of the impugned order :-

(2.) SOME facts can be noticed in the following manner. The plaintiffs- respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction against defendants 1 to 21 restraining them from selling, entering into an agreement of sale, transferring in any manner, alienating and disposing of whole or any part or any specific portion or share exceeding their share, more valuable precious part(s) of and the specific Khasra Nos. of joint immoveable agricultural land fully described in the head note of the plaint and it was further prayed that defendant No. 22 be directed not to entertain or accept any registered sale deed/power of attorney executed by all or any of the defendants or any other person on their behalf in respect of the land in dispute. It was the case of the plaintiffs-respondents that defendants 1 to 21 entered into an agreement of sale of land in their favour and they have sold almost all the land to the plaintiffs-respondents. Now defendants are attempting and threatening to sell their remaining land to some other persons to which they have got no right at all in violation of the agreement. With these broad allegations, the plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction for mandatory injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs-respondents filed an application Under Order 23 Rule 1(3) Code of Civil Procedure for the withdrawal of the suit mainly on the ground that the defendants have raised a preliminary objection that the suit of the plaintiffs is not legally maintainable and defendants 1 to 21 had already expired before the filing of the suit. Notice of the application was given to the defendants. They took the plea that since they have committed breach of agreement, therefore, they are not entitled to permanent/mandatory injunction. It was also pleaded that there is no formal defect in the suit. Lastly, it was prayed for the dismissal of the application. The learned trial Court allowed the application. Not satisfied with the impugned order, the present petition has been filed.

(3.) ORDER 23 Rule 1(3) lays down that :-