NEMI CHAND Vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST BHARATPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under Section 115, C. P. C. is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Bharatpur dated 12th August, 1974, whereby the order issuing injunction of the learned Munsiff, Bharatpur dated 1st June, 1976 was reversed.

(2.) THE brief facts which are relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that the plaintiffs Nemi Chand and others filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Urban Improvement Trust, Bharatpur. An application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. was also filed praying that the defendant be restrained from auctioning the suit land. The learned Munsiff initially issued an injunction in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendant on 15th May, 1974. After hearing the parties the injunction was confirmed on 1-6-1974. The defendant feel-ing aggrieved filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, bharatpur. The appeal was allowed by the learned District Judge on 12th august, 1974, and the order of the trial Court was set aside. The plaintiffs feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned District Judge have come up in revision before this Court.

(3.) ON behalf of the plaintiff-petitioners, it was contended that the learned district Judge has erred in law in vacating the injunction order issued by the trial Court, It was further contended that the learned lower appellate Court acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in holding that the plaintiffs had no prima facie case in their favour and the balance of convenience is also not on the side of the plaintiffs. It was further contended that there is nothing on the record on the basis of which it could be inferred that the land in question ever vested in the Urban Improvement Trust, bharatpur, and that the learned District Judge seriously erred in law in holding that no irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiffs if the land in question is allowed to be auctioned. It was further contended that there was enough material on the record on the basis of which only one inference could be drawn, and that was that the land in question belonged to the plaintiffs, and it never vested in the Urban Improvement Trust, Bharatpur. It was also contended that the learned lower appellate Court did not care to go through the documentary evidence on record and has based its judgment merely on conjectures and surmises rather than on actual appreciation of evidence on record. It was also contended that a failure of justice has occasioned by the learned lower appellate Court by exercising its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity inasmuch as the documents on record have not been considered and presumptions have been drawn regarding the existence of documents which have not been produced.