ISHWAR SINGH Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-petitioner has approached this Court by invoking the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the Code'). He has challenged the order dated 18.3.2002 and 28.8.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar and Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhajjar, dismissing his application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code. Both the Courts below have held that the plaintiff-petitioner himself has encroached upon the street. The breadth of the street is 30' and the plaintiff-petitioner has encroached upon reducing its breadth to 13-1/2'. The Courts below have placed reliance on the report of the Local Commissioner as well as the site plan placed on record by the Civil Draftsman. No evidence was led by the Civil Draftsman. No evidence was led by the plaintiff-petitioner to rebut the authenticity of the aforementioned documents.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the well known maxim that 'whosoever comes to equity must himself do equality' would fully apply to the facts for the present case. Once the plaintiff-petitioner has been found to be an encroacher, he cannot seek the relief of temporary injunction against the defendant-respondent Gram Panchayat. These facts have also been concealed by the plaintiff-petitioner. Therefore, the revision petition is absolutely misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) For the aforementioned reasons, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, it is made clear that any observations made in the paras above or in the orders of both the Courts below shall not be considered as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.