AMAR SINGH Vs. LAKHVIR SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision arises out of an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for ad -interim injunction in a suit filed on 5. 2. 1988 by the Petitioner for injunction against the Respondents restraining them from forcibly dispossessing him. In para No. 2 of the plaint it is stated that the boundary wall, with an iron gate, other construction in the plot and planting of trees exist in the suit property. Defendant No. 3 specifically denied this para in his written -statement. The trial Court vacated the temporary injunction already granted in favour of the Plaintiff -Petitioner Oil the ground that the Plaintiff -Petitioner alleged himself to be in illegal possession of the suit land and, therefore, it would not entitle him to the grant of temporary injunction as no irreparable injury could be suffered by him. The resolution of the Municipal Corporation deciding the lease to be given to Paramjit Singh Defendant was also taken into consideration. The appellate Court has gone into the detail while dismissing the appeal of the Plaintiff -Petitioner. Local Commissioner's report of 19th of September, 1988, after the order of the trial Court was passed on 2. 8. 1988. was given no importance specially because the Local Commissioner bad inspected the spot on 29. 7. 1988 but could give the report only on 19. 9. 1988, i e, about 2 1/2 months after the inspection and this report was said to have been made without notice to the contesting parties. The appellate Court has also noticed the fact as to how report of the Local Commissioner had tricked into the file after the order of the trial Court Copy of the Khasaia Girdawari for the year 1977 -78 and copy of the report of daily rojnamcha dated 21. 11.1988 were referred to Copy of Khasra Girdawari revealed that the plot in dispute owned by the Punjab Government and now occupied by the Municipal Corporation is being used for holding cattle fair. Said report of the Rojnamcha revealed that no notice was issued by the Revenue Officer before passing the order of correction of Khasra Girdawari These two documents were, therefore, ignored as of no importance by the appellate Court. The appellate Court was of the view that the Plaintiff had managed to create some evidence to show prima facie that the Plaintiff -Petitioner in possession. The above noted type of circumferences cannot be taken notice of as the same has arisen not out of natural sequence of events but out of events created by human agency with a particular effort.

(2.) THE counsel for the Petitioner has laid stress only on the ground that he had made some constructions which were existing on the date of the suit and, therefore, a prima facie case was made out for continuance of temporary injunction in favour of the Plaintiff -Petitioner and the lower courts have erred in dismissing his application.

(3.) THE counsel for Respondent M/s. Sokhi Engineering Works, Amritsar has also laid emphasis that this Respondent had deposited an amount of Rs. 38,000/ -, Rs. 5,26,717/ -, Rs. 34,000/ - and Rs. 48,000/ - in the treasury in respect of the plot in dispute upto the month of March 1983.