AMBARAIN Vs. DURGA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application directed against an order of the Additional District Judge, Jammu, partially accepting the appeal of the defendants vacating the order of injunction passed against them for executing the decree for ejectment passed against defendant No. 3. The facts which gave rise to this revision application, briefly stated, are these:

(2.) DEFENDANTS Nos. 1 and 2 purchased a house and vacant site from defendants Nos. 4 to 7 by virtue of sale deeds dated 1 -3 -1962 and 24 -5 -1962. Defendants 1 and 2 filed a suit for ejectment against Mst. Ramoon, defendant No. 3 in the Court of sub Judge (A. D. M.), Jammu. A compromise was effected between the parties and on the basis of the compromise the suit was decreed against Ramoon. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 took out execution of the decree against defendant No. 3. A separate suit was filed by the plaintiffs, Mst. Ambarain and Th. Rattan Singh for declaration that they were share -holders in the property sold by virtue of the sale deeds executed by defendants Nos. 4 to 7 in favour of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and for cancellation of those sale deeds. The plaintiffs suit was resisted by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that defendants Nos. 4 to 7 alone were owners of the property which was sold in their favour and that the plaintiffs had no interest in that property. The plaintiffs filed an application in the trial Court that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 be restrained from executing the decree against defendant No. 3 as also from constructing any house on the vacant site during the pendency of their suit. The trial court of City Judge, Jammu, after considering the evidence allowed the plaintiffs application and issued injunction restraining defendants Nos. 1 and 2 from executing the decree against defendant No. 3 and further restraining them from putting up any construction on the vacant site during the pendency of the suit. The defendants appealed and the Additional District Judge allowed their appeal to the extent that injunction regarding the execution of decree was vacated, but the order of the trial court restraining defendants Nos. 1 and 2 from raising any construction on the vacant site was maintained. The plaintiffs have come up in revision to this court against that order.

(3.) IT is argued on behalf of the petitioners that the lower appellate court ought not to have vacated the injunction restraining the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 from executing the decree for ejectment against Mst. Ramoon, defendant No. 3. It is argued that if in execution of the decree possession of the house is taken by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 the plaintiffs will have to add further relief of possession in their suit and, thereby will be put to great inconvenience and expense. It is contended that in order to save the plaintiffs from the trouble and expense which would be caused to them if possession of the house is taken by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in execution of their decree the lower appellate court ought not to have vacated the injunction restraining defendants Nos. 1 and 2 from executing the decree.