ROHTASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 22.08.2016 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Additional District Judge, dismissing the miscellaneous appeal of the petitioner and upholding the order dated 27.07.2015 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned trial Court, dismissing the application of the petitioner moved under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC'), declining the ad interim injunction in his suit for permanent injunction, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant revision petition.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) It has gone undisputed on record that the land in question is the absolute ownership of the respondent-Gram Panchayat. Petitioner is in possession of the suit land. However, neither there is any lease deed in favour of the petitioner nor he is claiming any title over the suit land. Possession of the petitioner is not an old one. As per his own showing, petitioner entered into the possession of the suit land only about two years ago and that too forcibly. Petitioner is not paying any lease money to the respondent-Gram Panchayat. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that petitioner is rank trespasser, thus, not a bona fide litigant. In this view of the matter, none of the basic ingredients for granting interim injunction is available in favour of the petitioner and both the impugned orders deserve to be upheld.