MURLI SHRI RAGHUNATH JI Vs. BABU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner approached the A.D.M. Kathua, invoked the clemency of section 145 of CR.P.C. for protecting his claimed possession of 49 kanals seven marlas of land comprising in Khasra No. 301 situated in village Falhot. The learned ADM in the first instance proceeded to attach the land in terms of sub -section (4) of section 145 of Cr.P.C. Finally vide order dated 9 -6 -1990 returned a finding declaring non -applicants to be in possession of the land in question on the date when the preliminary order was drawn. The attachment order was withdrawn and the respondents were allowed to retain possession until they would be legally evicted. This order does not seem to have been entered into the record and as a result of this omission on the part of the authorities, the petitionerâ„¢s name continued to exist in the tenancy column of the revenue entry, the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction before Sub Judge Kathua and by way of ad -interim relief prayed for temporary injunction in his favour, restraining the respondents -defendants from interfering into his possession, The learned Sub Judge passed an order on 30 -3 -1991 whereby he issued temporary injunction against respondents -defendants from interfering with the possession of the suit land pending disposal of the suit between the parties. The respondent -defendants aggrieved of this order field an appeal before District Judge Kathua who vide his order 16 -8 -1991 set -aside the order and allowed the appeal. It is against this appellate order that the present revision has been preferred.

(2.) THE recognised principles for grant or refusal of an injunction are oft -beaten. The existence of a prima -facie case must form the basis for such grant or refusal.

(3.) THE question that arises for the consideration of the court in this case is as to what is purpose of finding returned by the Magistrate in terms of sub section (6) of section 145 of the Cr. P. C. (hereinafter called the code). Should or should it not be taken to be conclusive until eviction in due course of law and in presence of such a finding in favour of party, can a civil court while brushing this finding aside come to the conclusion that a prima -facie case exists in favour of the opposite party for issuance of a temporary injunction.