PIARE LAL Vs. BABU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Patiala, dated December 16, 1988, whereby the order of the trial Court dated October 3, 1988, decling the ad iterim injunction in favour of the plaintiff was set aside and the defendants were restrained from dispossessing them from the suit land.

(2.) BABU Singh and others sons of Rakha Singh filed a civil suit for the grant of the declaration against Piare Lal and others to the effect that they were in possession of 7-12th share of lard measuring 74 kanals 8 marlas in part performance of the agreement to sell dated March (sic ). 1975 and June 5, 1982, which were subsequently rerewed on three or four occasions, executed by Piare Lal and Chetan Dass, defendants Nos. 1 and 5, respectively in their favour and, therefore, the judgment are decree dated December 30, 1987, and March 3, 1988, passed by the Assistant Collector, Fathgarh Sahib and the Collector, Patiala, respectively, ejecting their from the suit and were not binding upon them According to the plaintiffs, the Assistant Collector had no jurisfiction to pass the ejectment orders against the plaintiffs. Alongwith the suit, they also moved an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called the Code ). The said application was contested on behalf of the defendants. It was pleaded that no injunction order could be passed against the defendants restraining them from executing the decree passed by the revenue Court. Moreover, the ere agreement to sell, if any, did not give any right to the plaintiffs as to restrain the defendants from executing the decree. The trial Court dismissed the said application with the observations :-" I find that the applicants are coining legal devices to keep possession of their father intact over the property of which he is ordered to be ejected by the revenue Courts. " It has also been observed by the trial Court that the father of the present plaintiffs went up to he Hon'ble High Court against Rattan Singh etc the alleged purchasers from the present defendants and their stay application in the contempt petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court However, in appeal, the learned Additional District Judge took the view that the judgment of the revenue Court will not operate as res judicata when the revenue Court has no jurisdiction to try the subject-matter of the suit. Accordingly, temporary injunction as prayed for was granted in favour of the plaintiffs.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the mere agreement to sell did not confer any title on the plaintiffs to maintain the present suit. Moreover, argued the learned counsel, the execution of the decree passed by the revenue Court, could not be stayed In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon 1979 R. L. R. 506. On the other band, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents submitted that in the revenue Court itself this plea was taken by the plaintiffs, but the revenue Court left the matter open to be decided by the Civil Court Thus, argued the learned counsel, civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit and till the matter is finally disposed of, the plaintiffs could not be dispossessed in execution of the decree passed by the revenue Court. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Cheton Singh v. Union of India, 1983 P. L. J. 151.