PHOOL SINGH & ORS. Vs. UDMI @ UDE RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the order granting interim injunction restraining them from removing 28000 bricks.

(2.) The lower appellate Court, after taking into consideration the evidence on the record, came to the conclusion that according to the revenue records in Khewat No. 69, Khatauni No. 84, rectangle No. 90 killa No. 4, Thola Gopal Mazkoor, Ram Sahi etc. are in possession of 370/35914 share. There is no evidence on record with respect to the partition of the land in dispute. No attempt has been made in the course of arguments to show that the finding arrived at by the lower appellate Court is erroneous in any manner. Nothing has been shown against e joint possession of it. No relief is being sought with respect to the land in dispute. The only prayer pressed during the course of argument by the learned counsel of the respective parties relates to the bricks numbering 28000.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioners states that since the bricks have been laid by them and admittedly are lying in the joint benjar land, they may be permitted to remove the same. They undertake to make good the price of the brick in case the plaintiff on the final decision of the suit is found entitled to the same as being the owner of those bricks. In case the petitioners are not allowed to remove the bricks, they shall suffer an irreparable loss u they already dug the foundations of their house and they will be deprived of the use of the bricks. There is no balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff-respondent.