THAKUR DAS Vs. CHANDAR PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, dated 5. 2. 1998 vide which the learned Ist Appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against the order of the learned trial Court dated 30. 9. 1997 dismissing his application for injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) WHEN this revision came up for admission at the motion stage Shri J. C. Nagpal, Advocate had appeared for the caveator to oppose the grant of any interim order to the petitioner. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the revision itself was heard on merits.

(3.) AT this stage, when the Court has to form a prima facie view a written document, between the parties cannot be ignored or read at variance to its contents. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of 'lallu Yashwant Singh through L. Rs. v. Rao Jagdish Singh and Ors. , A. I. R. 1968 S. C. 620, it was contended that the landlord has no right to re-enter upon the property in the event of extinguishment of tenancy. The facts of this case are totally different; the extent of the property in tenancy was not in dispute but it was the extinguishment of the tenancy right which was subject matter of dispute. Furthermore, no order of mandatory injunction has been passed by the Court giving possession to the landlord. What has been declined to the petitioner is an equitable relief of injunction as the petitioner has failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience and any legal or legitimate right on the property in question. The reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case 'walter Louis Franklin through L. Rs. v. George Singh through L. Rs. , 1997 (3) S. C. C. 503, is equally misplaced. In this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that there was a clear recital in the sale deed which was held to be binding on the parties i. e. the respondent in that case it stated that appellant was in possession, consequently, grant of perpetual injunction by the trial Court was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.