MOHAN LAL Vs. MOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 12. 9. 1994 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, in an appeal filed by the respondent, Mohan Singh, against the order of injunction passed by Sub Judge, Second Class, Jalandhar, on 21. 5. 1994, granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner. Learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, reversed the order of injunction and has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151, C. P. C. and the petitioner who has felt aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional District Judge has sought intervention of this Court for restoration of injunction order passed by the Sub Judge.

(2.) THE plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit in the Court of Sub Judge, Jalandhar, seeking a declaration that the property mentioned in the plaint is in his possession and that he cannot be dispossessed by the defendant-respondent on the ground that the land in question formed part of public passage. Alongwith the plaint an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. was filed by the petitioner seeking a restraint order against his forcible dispossession. After hearing the rival parties, the learned Sub Judge IInd Class, Jalandhar, issued an order of injunction restraining the defendant respondent from interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the suit property. The learned Additional District Judge, before whom appeal was filed by the respondent, held that the petitioner has failed to make out a prima facie case and is, therefore, not entitled to the grant of injunction. Consequently, he dismissed the injunction application filed by the petitioner.

(3.) SHRI Bakshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that once the possession of the property is proved to be with the petitioner, he has a right to retain the said possession without interference by anybody. The learned counsel argued that the petitioner cannot be dispossessed or evicted from the suit property except in accordance with the procedure established by law and the learned Sub Judge was right in granting injunction in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the appellate Court has interfered with the order of the trial Court without properly appreciating the case of the petitioner and without even holding that the order passed by the learned trial Court suffered from any patent illegality so as to warrant interference by the appellate Court. He placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Sadhu Ram v. Gram Panchayat, Pastana, A. I. R. 1984 Punjab and Haryana 262; Hukan Singh v. Shri Tara Singh and Ors. , (1992-2)102 P. L. R. 331; and also on the Supreme Court judgments in M. Kallappa Setty v. M. V. Lakshminarayana Rao, A. I. R. 1972 S. C. 2299; and Dalpat Kumar and Anr. v. Prahlad Singh and Ors. , A. I. R. 1993 S. C. 276.