MOOLA Vs. RAM PAYARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision-petition is against the order of the Additional District Judge, Hissar, whereby interim injunction granted by the trial court restraining the respondents from dispossessing the plaintiff forcibly and illegally and from interfering with the tenancy rights of the plaintiff by alienating the suit land has been vacated.

(2.) THE case set up by the plaintiff is that the land in dispute has been in possession of his forefathers since 1985. At the time of partition of the country, plaintiff's father was in possession of the land as a marusi tenant. After partition, the land vested in custodian. Since the land was allotted to defendants father, plaintiff filed a suit in the court of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Hissar, in the year 1966 for grant of occupancy rights. The suit was decreed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade but this order was set aside in appeal. In short, the matter went up to the apex Court and the case was remitted back to be decided on merits which is pending before the Special Collector, Hissar The present suit was filed seeking a restrain order against the defendants preventing them from dispossessing the plaintiff forcibly and illegally as well as restraining them from alienating the property to any other person. The trial court on perusal of material placed on record prima-facie came to the conclusion that balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff and so restrained the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff and from alienating the land in dispute till the disposal of the suit. The appellate court despite having come to a finding that the petitioner is in possession of the suit land as a tenant has, for the reasons best known to him, declined to hold that the plaintiff has a prima-facie case or balance of convenience also lies in his favour and so accepted the appeal thereby reversing the order of the trial court. The broad facts which have been narrated in the earlier paragraph of this order have been admitted to be correct by the parties, i e. , the suit under Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act was filed by the present petitioner in the year 1966 and his claim was decreed by the court of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. It is also admitted case of the parties that matter was remitted by the apex Court judgment reported as Moola v. Financial Commissioner, 1981 P. L. J. 406 and is yet pending for a decision before the Special Collector, Hissar. Possession of the petitioner as a tenant is also admitted by the respondent Whether or not the petitioner has acquired occupancy rights has yet to be determined by the revenue court. Be that as it way, there is no denying the facts that the petitioner is in possession of the suit land as a tenant and this way the observation of the lower appellate court that there is no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner is palpably wrong. Similarly, the lower appellate court has erred in observing that balance of convenience is also not in favour of the petitioner. How and in what manner the lower appellate court has come to this conclusion is indeed difficult to comprehend Law protect possession of a trespasser even. Examined thus, the impugned order is palpably illegal. The lower appellate court despite having noticed the well known principles for grant of interim injunction, i. e. prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss or injury, has vacated the interim injunction.

(3.) HOWEVER, the learned counsel for the respondent; with his usual alertness yet stressed that even if be taken that the lower appellate Court has gone stray while evaluating the respective contention of the parties on the well laid tests of a prima-facie case ; balance of convenience and an irreparable injury, the same is not amenable to the revisional power of the court. Counsel relied upon the judicial pronouncement of this Court reported as Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. Uppal Engineering Private Limited, 1991 P. L. J. 554 and Secretary to Government v. Krishan Kumar, (1985-2) 88 P. L. R. 535 which, in turn, are based on the judgment of the apex Court in The Managing, Director (M. I. S.) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Ajit Parsad Tarway, A. I. R. 1973 S. C. 76.