GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. HARBHAJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 9.8.1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur who allowed the appeal filed by respondents 1 and 2 and has passed an order of injunction in their favour, Gram Panchayat, Dharamkot and Harbans Lal (petitioners) have filed this revision petition and have prayed for quashing of the impugned order.

(2.) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 have filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioners and proforma respondents for restraining them from illegally and fo cibly carving out, paving and constructing passage/street over the property forming part of Taur No. 4/18 to 4/21 situated within the Lal Lakir of village Dharamkot, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur. Alongwith the suit, the plaintiff -respondents 1 and 2 filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of temporary injunction. After considering the pleadings of the parties and hearing their learned counsel, the Subordinate Judge IInd Class, Hoshiarpur held that the plaintiffs have filed to make out a prima facie case for grant of ad -interim injunction. The Learned Sub Judge observed that in respect of the dispute relating to the public street, the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred and there was no jurisdiction to pass an order of injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. In the appeal filed by respondents 1 and 2, the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, passed the impugned order and granted injunction in their favour by directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding existing position at the spot. He further restrained the Gram Panchayat etc. to make further construction and further pavement of the street and further construction of drains. At the same time, he directed the plaintiffs not to demolish the existing street and drains.

(3.) THE second contention of Mr. Majithia is that the learned Additional District Judge has ignored the basic requirement of law, namely, that it is for the plaintiffs to prove prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. Learned counsel contended that the Additional District Judge was not right in placing the burden upon the Gram Panchayat to show that it was owner of the property because it was for the plaintiffs -respondents 1 and 2 to establish that they had any right over the property is dispute.