MANSHU Vs. JIT RAM ALIAS JIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 3250 and 3261 of 1993.

(2.) PETITIONER , Manshu Rani filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant -respondents from interfering in his possession over a piece of land as detailed in the plaint. Along with the suit, he also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking ad interim injunction. It was prayed that he was in possession of the land in dispute and the defendants were trying to interfere in his possession and, therefore, they be restrained from doing so. The trial court by order dated May 13, 1992 allowed the application and restrained the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit and except in due course of law. In the appeal filed by the defendants against the order of the trial Court, learned Additional District Judge by his order dated July 28, 1993 ordered the parties to maintain status quo. He also came to the conclusion that the trial court wrongly held that Manshu was in possession of the suit land. Order of status quo was passed on the ground that both the parties were claiming their respective possession over the suit land. This is how the present revision came to be filed by the plaintiff.

(3.) FOR what has been stated above, revision No. 3250 of 1993 is allowed, order of the learned Additional District Judge is set aside and that of the trial Court restored. Land involved in Civil Revision No. 3251 of 1993 is the same as in Civil Revision No. 3250 of 1993. Since the petitioner has been prima facie found to be in possession Civil Revision No. 3251 of 1993 is allowed, orders of the courts below are set aside and application for ad interim injunction is allowed and the defendant -respondent is restrained from dispossessing the petitioner during the pendency of the suit except in due course of law. There will, however, be no order as to costs. It is made clear that anything said herein will not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the controversy raised in the suit or in any proceedings before the revenue authorities. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suits at an early date, preferably within one year after affording two effective opportunities to each of the parties for their evidence.