GULSHAN KUMAR Vs. CHANCHALA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the defendants ­ petitioners against the order dated 29.10.2005 passed by the District Judge, vide which the appeal filed by Smt. Chanchala Devi, plaintiff, was allowed, the order dated 23.4.2005 passed by the trial Court was set aside and the plaintiff was granted ad interim injunction during the pendency of the suit.

(2.) THE facts which are relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that Smt. Chanchala Devi, plaintiff, had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from causing any interference whatsoever, changing the existing nature and character and raising any sort of construction or ousting the plaintiff from the suit land by taking forcible possession thereof. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the suit land was owned and possessed by one Prem Nath and other co-sharers, who had sold 2/5th share measuring 0-08-42 Sq. Mtrs. to the plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 9.1.1989 and the plaintiff was put in possession over the suit land. It was alleged that the defendants were threatening to interfere on the suit land by raising construction or ousting the plaintiff by taking forcible possession. Along with the suit, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C., for the grant of ad interim injunction.

(3.) AFTER hearing both sides and perusing the record, the learned trial Court dismissed the ad interim injunction application holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to the grant of ad interim injunction, because the suit was not maintainable. However, the appeal filed by the plaintiff was accepted by the learned District Judge, the order of the learned trial Court was set aside and the ad interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff, holding that the plaintiff had a strong prima facie case in her favour and the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss in case the ad interim injunction was not granted. Aggrieved against the order passed by the learned District Judge, the defendants filed the present revision petition in this Court.