JAI NARAIN Vs. BHIM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is aggrieved against the orders of the Courts below by which his application for temporary injunction has been declined.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has submitted that he is a co -sharer in Khewat No. 2 Khatauni No. 6 wherein Rect. No. 29 Killa No. 26/1 (5 -12) is Gair Mumkin Well. He had earlier filed a suit for partition and also filed an application for temporary injunction. He lost before both the Courts below on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to partition the agricultural land as the remedy lies before the revenue authorities in the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. The petitioner then filed the present suit for permanent injunction in order to restrain the defendants from raising any kind of construction on Khasra No. 29//26/1. The Courts below have dismissed the suit on the ground that the petitioner's earlier suit in which he had also filed application for temporary injunction was dismissed, therefore, he cannot maintain the application for stay in respect of the same property.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that there is no error in the orders of the Courts below as the plaintiff has very small share in the suit property out of the total land measuring 386 Kanal 17 Marlas and insofar as Khasra No. 29//26/1 is concerned, he had earlier filed the suit in which his application for temporary injunction was rejected, now the same application cannot be maintained and has rightly been dismissed by the Courts below.