DES RAJ Vs. MAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by Des Raj defendant-petitioner against whom an order of temporary injunction was passed by the trial Court from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the land in suit. Plaintiffs filed a suit for perpetual injunction of the ground that the land in suit alongwith some other land was taken by Consolidation Department from the right-holders of the village for utilising for common purposes. Some other land was utilised for common purpose and the remaining land including the land in suit remained un-utilised. The property of the right-holders had been recorded as the property of Jumla Mushtarka Malkan in the revenue record. The plaintiff, however, averred in the plaint that there arose a litigation between the residents of the village which was settled amicably and the possession of the Bachat land including the land in suit was handed over to the plaintiffs and one Ram Kishan. Defendant Des Raj also gave an affidavit that he is not in possession of the suit land and it is the plaintiffs who are in possession of the land in suit. Plaintiffs apprehending threat from Des Raj of their forcible dispossession from the suit land filed the present suit and sought injunction restraining Des Raj defendant from interfering in their possession over the suit land. The suit as well as application for interim injunction was contested by Des Raj on the ground that he was in possession of the suit land being owner as co-sharer in Pana, Hinduwan. He admitted that there was a compromise but it was subject to the payment of Rs. 10,000/- per acre to him. It was also alleged that since plaintiffs and one Ram Kishan failed to pay 10,000/possession was never handed over to the plaintiffs and he continued to be in possession of the land in suit.

(2.) The learned trial Court, finding a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs granted ad interim injunction restraining Des Raj from interfering in the possession, of the plaintiffs over the land in suit. Being aggrieved against the order of the trial Court, Des Raj filed appeal before the First Appellate Court and the same was also dismissed vide order dated July 21, 1990

(3.) Des Raj has impugned the said orders in this revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Courts below are not justified in law in granting injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. He further submitted that Des Raj has already filed a suit which is pending and this suit ought to have been stayed.