NARAIN PARKASH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed impugning the order of the Additional District Judge, Kurukshctra, whereby he had dismissed the appeal against the order of the trial Court declining to grant an injunction as prayed for by the plaintiffs.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioners-(hereinafter called thepetitioners) filed a suit against the respondents praying that they be restrained from interfering in the 1 enjoyment of the road which abutted the houses of the petitioners, on the ground that the area which was the subject-matter of dispute had been carved out as a Phirni in the consolidation proceedings and could not be encroached upon. The petitioners also secured a decree from the civil Court in Suit No. 765 of 1986 restraining the Gram Panchayat from raising any construction on the suit land. It has been stated in the present suit for permanent injunction that in violation of the judgment and decree in Civil suit No. 765 of 1986, the respondents are once against contemplating to make a construction on the plot in question. The respondents put in appearance and stated that the land admittedly did not belong to the petitioners and was, in fact, vested in the Gram Panchayat, which had agreed to donate it vide restriction dated 17.10.1987 for the construction of a primary school building. It was also asserted that no obstacle had been created in access to the houses of the petitioners as an approach road duly brick lined had been carved out for the purpose. As stated above the application for interim injunction was declined and the appeal filed against that order was also dismissed.

(3.) It has been urged by Mr. J.R. Mittal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, that the land has been carved out as a Phimi in the Scheme of consolidation and the change of user could not be made by the respondents. He has asserted that the civil court in Civil Suit No. 765 of 1986, which was decreed on 23.12.1988, the right of the petitioners had been recognised and a direction had been issued to the respondents not to make any construction on the land in question. In reply the stand of the respondents was that there was no balance of convenience in favour of the petitioners and no irreparable loss or injury could be suffered by them in case the temporary injunction was refused.