JEEWAN KUMAR Vs. RAMAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the defendant in Civil Suit No. 141 of 2010 titled Raman Kumar versus Jeewan Kumar, pending before he Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Court No. 1 Amb, District Una, H.P. with the prayer to set aside the order of the learned District Judge passed in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 29 -XIV/2011 decided on 20.8.2011 whereby he affirmed the order passed by the learned trial Court under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, restraining the petitioner herein by way of ad interim injunction from taking forcible possession, disconnecting the electric wire from the tube -well and forcibly locking the tube -well existing over the suit land till final disposal of the main suit. Precisely the case of the plaintiff -respondent has been that his predecessor -in -interest had installed a tube - well over some part of the suit land and also got an electric meter. He raised poly -house to improve his financial condition but the defendant -petitioner felt envious, forcibly locked the tube -well and started causing interference in the land of plaintiff which had fallen in his share. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also moved for ad interim injunction pleading prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss.

(2.) THE suit and the application both were contested by defendant -petitioner. According to him suit land is joint inter se the parties and also that boarding, lodging and cultivation of the land is separate for the last about 30 years. It is averred that the tube -well was constructed with joint funds in the year 1970. In a family arrangement despite suit land being joint, was separately cultivated and he paid the money and owned tube -well exclusively. He had installed electric meter and room remained under his lock and key but the plaintiff -respondent used to irrigate his land after getting the consent of the defendant -petitioner only.

(3.) THE learned District Judge re -examined the impugned order in the light of the record and did not find any fault therein as such dismissed the appeal.