LAWS(P&H)-1978-7-27

PANK RAJ Vs. HARDIT SINGH

Decided On July 28, 1978
PANK RAJ Appellant
V/S
HARDIT SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hardit Singh respondent filed a suit against the petitioners in the Court of Shri H.R. Goel, Subordinate Judge, Hissar, for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from dispossessing him from the land in dispute of which, he, according to his contention, was in possession as a tenant. He also filed an application for ad interim injunction restraining the petitioners from dispossessing him during the pendency of the case. On the basis of the material provided by the respondent, the learned trial Subordinate Judge issued ex parte ad interim injunction in his favour. The petitioners appeared in Court and contested the suit of the respondent denying the tenancy. They raised a plea that the respondent was their servant and was in possession of the land in that capacity. His yearly emoluments were Rs. 1800/-. The petitioners filed an application for vacation of the ex parte ad interim stay granted against them. Both the parties produced documents in support of their claim at the stage of the decision of the interim injunction application.

(2.) The learned Subordinate Judge heard the parties at length and through a lengthy order came to the conclusion that the respondent was not a tenant on the land in dispute but was a servant of the petitioners. He also doubted that Nehri Girdawari produced by the respondent showing him as a tenant. On these findings, the ad interim injunction was vacated. On appeal by Hardit Singh, the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Hissar, exercising enhanced appellate powers, did not agree with the conclusions of the learned trial Subordinate Judge, and set aside the order. He issued the ad interim injunction in favour of the respondent on the condition that he shall not be dispossessed from the land in dispute during the pendency of the proceedings provided he furnished security in the amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial Court for mesne profit within 10 days from the date of the order.

(3.) The petitioners dissatisfied with the order of the Senior Subordinate Judge, have come up in appeal to this Court.