NAGAR PANCHAYAT Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Nagar Panchayat Moranwali (hereinafter called the Panchayat) brought a suit for perpetual injunction restraining Municipal Committee, Sunam, from interfering with its possession of a piece of land located within the municipal limits of Sunam and from raising construction thereon. The said claim was based on the allegation that the Panchayat was owner of the land and was in its possession. Along with the suit, the Panchayat moved an application for ad interim injunction in the nature as prayed for in the plaint. The trial Court initially granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction. But, on resistance shown by the Municipal Committee, it (the trial Court) vacated the same. Dissatisfied with the said result, the Panchayat carried appeal which was dismissed by the Senior Subordinate Judge (with enhanced appellate powers). Hence, the Panchayat came to this Court in revision.

(2.) The principles governing the grant of ad-interim injunction are well-settled. In order to obtain one, the plaintiff has to show (i) that he has a prima facie case; (ii) that denial of the same would cause irreparable loss to him; and (iii) that the balance of convenience favours the grant of the same. The grant of ad-interim injunction is a discretionary relief. As such, an Appellate Court or a Revisional Court would be slow in interfering with the order recorded by the trial Court provided the same had been passed by it (the trial Court) after taking into consideration the aforesaid principles governing the grant of ad-interim injunction. In the instant case, the petitioner (the Panchayat) claimed itself to be owner and in possession of the land. The said averment made by the petitioner was controverted by the respondent. Therefore, it can, at the most, be said that there is a debatable issue between the parties and the petitioner has a prima facie case.

(3.) Both the courts below found that the petitioner was not in possession of the land, and on the contrary it was the respondent who was in its possession. The petitioner examined witnesses in the suit on February 2, 1976. Mr. H.L. Sarin, learned counsel for the respondent, has produced certified copies of the statements of Mehar Singh (P.W.1) who is Block Development and Panchayat Officer and Sadhu Singh (P.W.3) who is Panch of the Panchayat. Both of them admitted that the respondent was in possession of the land and further stated that the respondent had constructed a shed and started a bus stand on the land.