SURINDER PARTAP SINGH Vs. VIJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, thereby challenging the order dtd. 7/12/2022 passed by the Learned Principal District Judge, Samba (hereinafter referred to be as 'the appellate Court'), whereby Civil Miscellaneous appeal titled, 'Vijay Kumar and Anr. vs. Surinder Partap and Anr.' was allowed and the order dtd. 24/11/2020 passed by the Learned Additional Munsiff, Samba (hereinafter referred to be as 'the trial Court') in an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, read with Sec. 151 CPC, was set aside.

(2.) The petitioners had filed the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondents in respect of the land measuring 24 kanals 5 marlas comprising Khasra Nos. 136, 247, 248 min 249, 250, 204 situated at village Kathlai, District Samba on the ground that respondent No. 3 being the attorney holder of other respondents had entered into an agreement to sell with them on 17/10/2018. Further, an amount of Rs.3.00 lacs was paid to respondent No. 3 by the petitioners and accordingly, the possession of the land was also delivered to them. As the respondents tried to occupy the suit property forcibly, the petitioners filed the suit for injunction against them and also filed an application for grant of interim relief under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. The learned trial court, vide its order dtd. 1/5/2019 passed an ex parte interim order directing the parties to the suit to maintain the status quo with regard to the suit property.

(3.) Thereafter, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed their written statement, wherein they stated that they had never executed any power of attorney exclusively in favour of respondent No. 3. Rather, they had executed power of attorney in favour of one Raman Sambyal S/o Satya Pal R/o Bagla Mohra Suchani and defendant No. 3 in respect of the suit land, which was registered on 19/9/2015, but the same was cancelled on 24.10. 2018, as such, respondent No. 3 alone at all was not competent to execute any document. It was also pleaded that respondent No. 3 himself filed a suit against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and other persons, titled, Bodh Raj vs. Vijay Kumar and others, which was pending before the learned Munsiff, Samba and subsequently the said suit was withdrawn by the respondent No. 3 by virtue of a compromise deed dtd. 21/9/2019. It was also pleaded that once the respondent No.3 claimed to be in possession of the suit land on 13/2/2018, then how the petitioners could claim to be in possession of the suit land on 17/10/2018.