VARMA Vs. RAMSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for revision against the order of the learned Commissioner, Ajmer dated 9.7.1959.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record as well. In a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the applicant, an application for temporary injunction was also moved. The same was rejected by the trail court, Asstt. Collector, Ajmer on the ground that in proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C., orders had been passed against the applicant and the Opposite party had been ordered to be placed in possession, the same having been upheld by the Sessions Judge also. In appeal the learned Commissioner also rejected the application identically on the same grounds. Manifestly, these orders have been passed completely ignoring the important rule of law that the revenue courts have to be guided in deciding cases before them on the evidence produced before them by the parties in such cases and not to be influenced by the decisions in the Criminal Courts in those matters. The grant or otherwise of temporary injunctions in suits or proceedings under the Tenancy Acts is governed by provisions of Sec. 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act or Sec. 187 of the Ajmer Tenancy and Land Records Act, 1950, and a temporary injunction may be granted if it was proved by affidavit or otherwise that the property relating to such suit or proceeding was in danger of being wasted, damaged, etc., etc. The learned courts below should have acted in accordance with the provisions of law and not allowed themselves to be guided by the criminal courts. The orders of both the learned lower courts, therefore, suffer from grave illegality and material irregularity, and cannot be upheld. An authority, if needed on this point would be found in Bhagirath vs. Samdhukhan, 1953. R. L. W. 189, where it has been observed that "Thus when the lower court referred to the material to which it should not have referred it was held that in so doing it acted contrary to the fundamental principles of judicial procedure and took into account which should not have been considered by it." The learned counsel for the opposite party No. 4 has, however, citing A.I.R, 33/1946 Nagpur 428, urged that in case of declaration alone temporary injunction cannot be issued as these proceedings do not affect the property but only the title to the property. That case is, however distinguishable from the present one as it related to a declaration and injunction for prevention of the sale of the property by a Court. There the learned High Court had held that a party could sell a property even if it was in the possession of another man if a title could be passed thereby, and it was in that connection that it was observed that in a suit for declaration simpliciter an injunction could not be granted. It could not therefore, be taken to mean that an injunction could not be granted even in cases in which there was a. dispute about the possession of the property itself and a party had applied for declaration of title as well as grant of an injunction, and a prima facie case was made out for the same. In such cases the revenue courts have to be guided by the provision regarding grant of temporary injunction referred to above provided in the Tenancy Act.

(3.) We, therefore, accept this revision, set aside the order of both the lower courts and remand the case back to the trial court with the direction that the same may be decided afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made above.