JHAVARMAL Vs. PURSHOTTAMLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the controversy raised by the parties in these four revision petitions is common being based on identical facts arising out of common impugned order, these petitions have been heard together at the joint request of the parties and are being finally decided by this common judgment.

(2.) IN Revision Petition Nos. 1468/99 and 1470/99 Jhavarmal (defendant) challenged the common order dated 15. 9. 1999 of the Additional District Judge No. 1 Sikar in appeal Nos. 54/99 & 55/99 whereby the order dated 23. 8. 99 of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn) Fatehpur (Sikar) granting temporary injunction in civil suit No. 7/96 in favour of plaintiffs Purshottam & Shankarlal, has been modified.

(3.) AN application for site inspection was also filed by the plaintiffs. One Advocate commissioner was appointed to inspect the site on 16. 1. 1996. He had prepared the site plan and also submitted his inspection report to the trial court, which shows that on 16. 1. 1996 the suit property was in possession of Purshottam & Others; that there was no tin-shed, latrine, pucca room etc. on the suit land; that, the trial court had directed all the parties to maintain status quo as on 19. 1. 1996, but on 14. 2. 1996, Radheyshyam s/o Jhavarmal allegedly in collusion with Suresh Kumar (defendant No. 2) is purported to have trespassed over the suit land by erecting there tin sheds thereon, whereupon power of attorney holder of Purshottam lodged an F. I. R. at police station Fatehpur on 15. 2. 1996 upon which police investigated the matter and produced challan before the criminal court, which in criminal case No. 216/96 after due trial, recorded findings of guilt against Jhavarmal's son and Jhavarmal himself and thereby convicted them of the offence punishable u/sec. 447, IPC, on 4. 5. 1999.