RAHUL Vs. PIRTHI RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dtd. 19/5/2022 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Fazilka, whereby, an order dtd. 1/2/2022 passed by Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Abohar, has been reversed and the injunction application has been allowed.

(2.) Material facts, as culled out from the pleadings placed on the record are that, initially, respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the present petitioner Rahul and performa respondents, thereby restraining petitioner-defendant No.3 and performa defendants, from interfering into the peaceful possession over the land measuring 16 Kanals 00 marla, comprised in Rect. No.94 Killa No.9 (8-0), 12 (8-0), Khewat No.335/10, Khatauni No.651, as per Jamabandi for the year 201718. Further restraint had also been sought from destroying/damaging the Kinnow orchard and interfering in the cultivation and irrigation of the land by the plaintiff. Along with the plaint, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was also filed.

(3.) Vide order dtd. 1/2/2022, at first instance, the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Abohar, thereby making an observation that Khasra Girdawari had been challenged before the Court of Assistant Collector-II, Khuian Sarwar and order dtd. 23/9/2021 has been passed with regard to the correction of Khasra Girdawari, whereby the said application has been consigned to record room sine-die, till the final decision of the suit. It was further opined that there was concealment of the material facts by the respondent/plaintiff, with regard to the pendency of the application for correction of Khasra Girdawari before the Court of Assistant Collector-II, Khuian Sarwar, while filing the original suit. Hence, the application was dismissed.