DHARAM PAL Vs. GURCHARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, dated May 6, 1989, whereby the order of the trial Court declining ad interim order of injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, was maintained.

(2.) The plaintiffs while filing this suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing them, made an application for ad interim injunction. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court; with the observations that the plaintiffs had concealed the earlier order passed against them on November 24, 1988, and the plaintiffs had not filed regular suit against the order of the objection petition and, as such, they are not entitled to the discretionary relief of ad interim injunction and the defendants cannot be denied the fruits of the decree which they had obtained after long drawn battle and they would suffer irreparable loss if the ad interim injunction is confirmed against them. In appeal, the Additional District Judge, affirmed the said finding of the trial Court. He observed that so the plaintiffs cannot be said to have come to the court with clean hands to seek the discretionary relief of the Court. The delaying tactis of the appellants to obstruct the execution of the ejectment order deserved to be curbing and they cannot be allowed to misuse the process of the Court. Hence the plaintiffs who are none else but the heirs of Khushi Ram tenant himself have got no prima facie case for ad interim injunction. Since the respondents have got a valid ejectment order so the balance of convenience is in their favour and if the injunction is granted they will suffer irreparable loss as the delivery of possession has already been obstructed for the last about 7-1/2 years.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the considered view that the plaintiffs are abusing the process of Court by filing this suit. The eviction order was passed against their father Shri Khushi Ram in the year 1981 and the defendants have not been able to take possession uptill now in execution thereof because of the delaying tactics on the part of the plaintiffs. Thus, their conduct deserves to be curbed. Consequently, this petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Costs Rs. 500/-.