LAWS(HPH)-1992-7-3

BHORI SINGH Vs. RAM LAL

Decided On July 29, 1992
BHORI SINGH Appellant
V/S
Ram Lal And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant-Petitioner has questioned the two orders passed by Sub-Judge First Class, Amb on 10th July, 1991 and 12th July, 1991 in Civil Suit No. 388 of 1986 with a prayer to quash and set aside the same in exercise of revisional jurisdiction or in the alternative in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Plaintiffs-Respondents No. 1 and 2 instituted a suit against Defendant-Petitioner impleading Respondents No. 3 and 4 as Defendants No. 2 and 3 in the subordinate court at Amb praying for a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with their possession over the suit land measuring 2-25-24 hectares situate in village Polian Jaswala in District Una. The decree was claimed alleging the suit land to be owned and possessed by them. The Defendants contested the suit refuting the Plaintiff's claim and asserting the suit land to be owned and possessed by them having been allotted in their favour as a result of Consolidation of Holdings proceedings in the village. Issues were framed in the suit and thereafter the case was posted for Plaintiff's evidence.

(3.) On 9th July 1991, when the subordinate court was closed for summer vacation, an application was moved by the Plaintiffs under Order 39, Rule 7, Code of Civil Procedure alleging that the Defendants-Respondents, taking undue advantage and benefit of summer vacation in the court, on 6th July 1991, felled a big Sheesham tree from out of the suit land and thereafter with the help of one Jeewan Singh son of Defendant No. 1 got Anr. big size Sheesham tree and Jamun tree felled from the suit land. It was also alleged that process of cutting other remaining trees from out of the suit land by the Defendants was still in progress. Though the matter was reported to the police and forest authorities but they refused to take any action in the matter because of the pendency of civil litigation. Accordingly, a prayer was made for appointment of a Commissioner with a view to visit the spot and to make a note of the existing position of the spot and pass further appropriate orders in the matter in order to prevent further felling of the trees. Simultaneously, Anr. application under Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure was also made for taking up the application on the same day being a matter of urgent nature. The trial Court made an order on the application that the file be put up the next day, that is, 10th July 1991, on which date the following order was passed by the trial Court, without any notice to the opposite party (the Defendants):