JIWAN SIKNGH, SON OF JAMUNA DASS AND SHAMSHER SINGH, SON OF JAMUNA DASS BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE GONDPUR BANEHRA, TEHSIL AMB, DISTRICT UNA (HP) Vs. STATE OF H.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR, UNA (HP)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTICE be issued to the respondent. Learned Additional Advocate general waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent. The plaintiffs are the petitioners herein who instituted a suit for declaration that they are owners of the land by virtue of the pleadings in the suit. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 was instituted by the petitioners herein praying that during the pendency of the suit they (a) be not dispossessed from the suit land; (b) house standing on the land be not dismantled or demolished etc.

(2.) THE learned trial Court on the material on record holds that the petitioners -plaintiffs are in possession of the land for which proceedings under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act for ejectment have been instituted against them which itself proves the possession of the petitioner herein. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court proceeded to grant a temporary injunction till the conclusion of the suit.

(3.) AT this stage, it would not be open to the Court to preempt the claim on merits of either party. What was primary for adjudication before the Courts below was the fact as to whether the petitioners were in possession of land, the nature of such possession, whether they were dispossessed or not and the balance of convenience that is to say that prima -facie evaluation of the pleadings and documents on record and not to be swayed by mere fact of wrong doing of either party. The Court should also be aware of the fact that temporary injunction does not determine the rights of the parties to the suit. It does not vest any equity to any party but would enure till the decision of the suit and abide by the final decree. To hold a party to be a wrong doer only on the basis of institution of proceedings against him without anything more, also affects those proceedings. The petitioners have yet to lead evidence in support of their respective claims. This is not to say that a wrong doer is entitled to interim protection. In these circumstances, order of the learned Appellate Court is quashed and set aside and the order of the learned trial Court is restored. It is also directed that this order shall have no effect on any proceedings or order passed under 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act and that order shall be enforced independently. Petition stands disposed of.