RAM PRASHAD Vs. VIJAY SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred against the order of the Additional Commissioner II, Jaipur dated 22. 3. 60. Briefly put, the circumstances leading to this revision are that in a suit for permanent injunction preferred by the opposite party Vijai Singh, an application for grant of temporary injunction was also moved. THIS application was granted by the learned Asstt. Collector Bharatpur, vide his order dated 14. 8. 1958, and a temporary injunction was granted restraining the applicant from interfering with the possession of the opposite party over the disputed fields. An appeal was preferred by the applicant against this order to the Addl. Commissioner. The learned Addl. Commissioner accepted the appeal but a receiver was appointed by him to take charge of the disputed fields until the case was decided. It is against this appellate order that this revision has been preferred.

(2.) A bare reading of the order of the learned Addl. Commissioner would go to show that he has taken into consideration, while passing the impugned order, points which deserved to be given thought of by a magistrate acting under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not at. all applied his mind to the requirements of sec. 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, under the provisions whereof alone a temporary injunction can be granted or a receiver can be appointed to take charge of the property under dispute. That a murder had been committed because of the dispute over the suit land and that the dispute thereon had been continuing for a very long time and that it was not clear as to which party was in possession of the disputed land and in what capacity, are the factors nowhere mentioned in sec. 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The only circumstances under which an action can be taken under that section, as laid down therein, are that if it was proved in any suit or proceeding under that Act that the suit property was in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party thereto or that any of the parties threatened or intended to remove or dispose of the suit property with a view to defeat the ends of justice, the court could grant a temporary injunction and, if necessary, appoint a receiver. Thus, it was only when such a danger of waste, damage or alienation or a threat or intention of the removal or disposal of the property in order to defeat the ends of justice was proved to be in existence that an injunction could be granted by the revenue courts or a receiver could be appointed, if necessary. In no other circumstances could any revenue court taking cognizance of any case under the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act pass any order granting a temporary injunction or appointing a receiver. The Board has emphasised this point in a number of cases and has always condemned the practice of the appointment of the receiver on considerations not provided by the above referred provisions of law.