RAM SARUP JUG LAL Vs. HARPHUL JAGGU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the Additional District judge, Jind, whereby he has affirmed on appeal an order passed by the trial Court under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure directing the petitioner and his sons to restore a water-course (Khal) which had been demolished after passing of a stay order against them. Separate proceedings for contempt of Court are said to have been initiated against the petitioner and his sons on the application of the plaintiff-respondent.

(2.) THE suit has been instituted on 10-3-71 and the trial Court had granted ex parte stay order against the petitioner and his sons (defendants in the suit) on 11-31971 on the application of the plaintiff-respondent. It had been alleged in the plaint that the defendants had demolished the khal on a earlier occasion also and that the canal authorities had got the khal restored. The defendants were said to be threatening again to demolish that water course. Hence this suit for a permanent injunction to prevent a threatened wrong.

(3.) A Local Commissioner appointed by the Court had inspected the spot on 15-31971 and had reported that the water course in dispute was in existence at the spot. This water-course was, however, found to have been demolished some days later after the passing of the ex parte stay order. The two Courts below were, therefore, fully justified in directing the restoration of the water-course and the undoing of a high-handed act which had taken place during the pendency of the proceedings and after passing of this stay order. There is, therefore, nothing wrong if the two Courts below had made a mandatory order against the defendants directing them to reconstruct the khal.