BAHADUR SINGH Vs. BHURA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants' revision petition against the judgment of variance recoded b the Additional district judge Barnala in the circumstances, which are these. Bhura Singh and another plaintiff respondents filed a suit against Bahadur singh and others defendant petitioners, for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the petitioners from interfering with the alleged peaceful possession o the plaintiff respondents over the land in dispute measuring 63 kanals an 18 marlas. Along with the suit, an application was also filed for obtaining the same relief ad interim. It was alleged that on March 31, 1981. The predecessor in interest of the petitioners were restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff respondents over the land except in due course of law. However, the said respondents sold the land to the petitioners by means of a registered sale deed on April 27, 1981. In these premises, the plaintiffs prayed for injunction as also the interim relief during the pendency of the suit. m The question of granting relief ad interim was considered by the trial court who came to the conclusion that out of the suit land, the plaintiffs were prima facie proved to be in possession of only certain kile numbers and not in possession of the remaining land, which was show in the revenue records to be in the cultivating possession of the Gurbax Singh. The trial court, therefore, granted the necessary ad interim relief of injunction in respect of the land over which the possession of the plaintiff respondents stood proved prima facie. The prayer for the same relief in regard to the remaining land was declined.

(2.) The plaintiff respondents preferred an appeal which was heard by the Additional District Judge Barnala who granted the necessary relief of interim injunction in favour of the respondents in respect of the whole of the suit land. It is this order of the lower appellate court which is impugned in the present revision petition.

(3.) Mr. G.R. Majithia, learned counsel for the petitioners has made a precise and to the point submission, which may be considered. The argument is that the lower appellate Court had interfered with the discretion exercised by the trial Court without any reasonable or cogent consideration. It is further submitted that in varying the order of the trial Court, the lower appellate Court had taken into consideration certain extraneous facts which could not have been legally adopted as the basis modifying the order of the trial Court.