SUKHDEV SINGH Vs. MAHENDER SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF /Petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the impugned order dated 1.2.2010 (P4) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, vide which the appeal filed by the Defendants/ Respondents against the interim injunction dated 23.7.2008 (P3) was partly allowed and Defendants/Respondents were permitted to instal bore (tube well) on the suit land at their own costs.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that Plaintiff/Petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants/Respondents from digging out the earth from the suit land and not to install bore (tube well) forcibly and illegally. Along with the suit he filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure seeking interim injunction. The suit as well as application was contested by the Defendants/Respondents by filing written statement/reply. After hearing both the sides the learned trial court allowed the application vide order dated 23.7.2008(P3) and restrained the Defendants/Respondents from digging out the earth from the suit land and from installing the bore (Tube well) therein till the final disposal of the suit.

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff/Petitioner that the learned appellate court has grossly erred while partly allowing the appeal of the Defendants/Respondents and has caused great prejudice to the Plaintiff/Petitioner in view of the fact that land in dispute already stands redeemed in his favor vide order dated 28.6.2007 (P5) passed by learned Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Pehowa. It is further argued that Defendants/ Respondents are claiming themselves to be in possession through the mortgagee -Surinderjit Kaur and once the mortgage itself stands redeemed the Defendants/Respondents have no right over the land in dispute.