HAZARILAL & ANOTHER Vs. RAMVILAS & ORTHES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ram Vilas, plaintiff-non-petitioner, filed a suit for injunction in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) with the allegations that in the north of this house there existed old "Kachcha" latrine and bathroom and for the purposes of sanitation and hygienic necessities he built "pakka" latrine and bathroom at the very site but the Panchayat Officers as also the present petitioners wanted to demolish them, whereupon he had to approach the Civil Court for protection of his right. Alongwith the plaint he had filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure seeking ad-interim temporary injunction. The learned trial Court declined to issue the ad-interim injunction, but in appeal the learned appellate Court held that there existed a prima-facie case in favour of the plaintiff-non petitioner, that he would be subjected to irreparable loss if the interim relief is not granted to him and that balance of convenience also lies in issuing an ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff-non petitioner. Aggrieved by such order, made by the learned appellate Court, Hazari Lal and Moti Lal, petitioners, who were the defendants in the suit, have approached in this Court in revision under section 115 CPC.

(2.) When the present matter was taken up for hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioner Ram Vilas raised preliminary objection to the effect that the petitioners have no locus standi in the present matter as they were not directly effected by the impugned order. This preliminary objection is rejected on the obvious ground that the plaintiff-non-petitioner had himself arrayed the present petitioners as parties to the suit. Moreover the said petitioners could have placed their grievance against the order issued by the learned appellate Court this Court.

(3.) On merits the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the plaintiff-non-petitioner Ramvilas was in unauthorised and unlawful possession of a public land whereupon he had constructed a latrine and bathroom causing great inconvenience to the public at large in general and to the petitioners in particular. It was submitted that since the plaintiff-non-petitioner was a trespasser he was not entitled to the discretionary relief of injunction from a Court of law. As against it the learned counsel for the plaintiff-non- petitioner Ramvilas urged that the plaintiff-non-petitioner and other members of his family had been in possession of the disputed land for over 40 years and that earlier there was a "kachcha" latrine on the disputed land and thereafter he had simply raised "pakka" construction on the same site. It was further pointed out that in order to solve all desputes relating to the use of the disputed land, the plaintiff-non-petitioner had even deposited some amount with the Panchayat for getting the same allotted to him. The learned counsel thus submitted that since the appellate Court, in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it had chosen to exercise its discretionary power in a particular way, this Court, setting in revision under Sec. 115 Code of Civil Procedure should not interfere with such exercise by the appellate Court.