AMRIK SINGH Vs. AJAIB SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's revision petition questioning the legality of the order Annexure P7 passed by the lower appellate Court dismissing the application for interim injunction though the trial Court had granted interim injunction to the petitioner restraining the defendants -respondents from interfering in possession and cultivation of the property in dispute.

(2.) BRIEF facts, necessary for the adjudication of the present revision petition, are that the plaintiff - petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants Ajaib Singh, Bachan Singh and Gram Panchayat of Village Bachoana, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa, from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff - petitioner in the land measuring 11 kanals 6 marlas mentioned in the heading of the plaint claiming that he had obtained possession of the land in an auction for 1 year on payment of amount of Rs.7025/ - vide receipt No.13 dated 19.5.2014. The plaintiff - petitioner claim that he had sown paddy crop and that the defendants be restrained from harvesting the same. The trial Court vide order dated 10.9.2014, allowed the application observing that prima facie the Gram Panchayat was owner of the suit land as per the revenue record. Relying upon the receipt and resolution of the Gram Panchayat, it was observed that the plaintiff - petitioner had obtained the suit land in auction.

(3.) IT has been informed that in view of the interim injunction granted vide order dated 21.10.2014 the plaintiff - petitioner was permitted to harvest crop and was directed to furnish indemnity bond in the sum of Rs.2 lacs as the defendant Nos.1 and 2 claimed that crop had been sown by them and had been wrongly harvested under the garb of the interim order passed in favour of the plaintiffpetitioner. Defendant Bachan Singh and his brother filed an appeal against the interim injunction order. The said appeal was allowed vide impugned order observing that the plaintiff - petitioner had failed to establish that he had been handed over the actual physical possession of the land in dispute. The lower Appellate Court observed that the plaintiff - petitioner had not been able to establish the delivery of possession by the Gram Panchayat and that the defendants Nos.1 and 2 had never delivered possession to the plaintiff and the possession continued to remain with the defendant Nos.1 and 2. Strong reliance has been placed on application dated 19.6.2014, submitted by the plaintiff -petitioner to the BDPO for demarcation of the suit land wherein the plaintiff - petitioner had submitted that he had got land on lease by way of auction but defendant Bachan Singh had stopped him from cultivating the land. The said application was sent by BDPO to the Tehsildar, Budhladha, requesting for demarcation of the suit land. On the basis of the said application the lower appellate Court formed an opinion that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land till 19.6.2014 and he had filed the suit on 28.6.2014. On account of absence of any document of possession, the interim injunction application of the plaintiff was dismissed considering the observations of the trial Court that the plaintiff might have sown the crop after auction was set aside. Taking into consideration the necessary ingredients to determine the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the lower appellate Court held that the plaintiff - petitioner prima facie failed to prove his possession, the balance of convenience and irreparable loss which was likely to be caused to him.