Chaman Singh and Others vs Balwinder Singh and Others

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.—This is defendants'' revision petition challenging the order dated 6.12.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur vide which order dated 14.11.2005 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Ferozepur has been modified and the condition of deposit of Rs. 6,000/- per crop in the Court as imposed by the trial Court upon the plaintiff-respondents has been deleted while granting ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs.

As per the averments made In this petition, the plaintiff/respondents filed a suit for declaration u/s 45 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act to the effect that the entries in the column of cultivation in the jamabandi showing Inder Singh son of Shankar Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners-defendants in possession of the suit land are wrong and the name of the plaintiffs are liable to be entered in the column of possession in jamabandi. The plaintiff-respondents also sought relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into possession of the suit land. It was stated that the plaintiff-respondents were in possession of the suit land as tenants. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for grant of temporary injunction.

The aforesaid suit as well as application for ad interim injunction was contested by the defendant-petitioners. It was stated by the petitioners that Inder Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, had purchased the land in dispute from its previous owner and the revenue record has been manipulated and fabricated by the plaintiffs in connivance with the revenue officials and the Khasra Girdawaris have been wrongly recorded in their names.

The Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ferozepur vide order dated 14.11.2005 restrained the petitioners from dispossessing or from interfering into the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land during the pendency of the suit subject to the condition that the plaintiffs will deposit at least Rs. 6,000/- per crop year in the Court during the pendency of the suit. It was further ordered by the trial Court that if the plaintiffs failed to deposit the aforesaid amount the order of ad interim injunction will automatically stand vacated.

Aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 14.11.2005 passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondents filed an appeal which was allowed vide impugned order dated 6.12.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur and the order passed by the trial Court was modified and the condition of deposit of Rs. 6,000/- per crop year in the Court imposed upon the plaintiff-respondents was ordered to be deleted and the said application filed by the plaintiff-respondents was accepted in toto without any condition whatsoever.

Feeling aggrieved therefrom, the impugned order dated 6.12.2006 passed by the Lower Appellate Court, the defendants have approached this Court by way of this revision petition.

In support of his case, learned Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had purchased the land in dispute from its previous owner and mutation was also sanctioned in their favour. After the death of Inder Singh, the present petitioners having inherited the land in dispute have become the owners thereof. It is the contention of the petitioners that the plaintiffs claim themselves to be in possession of the land as tenants and they are not paying any Batai or Chakota to the land owners and therefore, the condition of deposit of Rs. 6,000/- per crop in the Court during the pendency of the suit was rightly imposed by the trial Court and the same has been deleted illegally by the Lower Appellate Court and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur is liable to be set aside.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order.

The Courts below have observed that after the death of Chanan Singh, the present petitioners are recorded in possession of the suit land. The trial Court also observed that although there is a correction Of Khasra Girdawari in favour of the defendants but there is nothing on the file as to how the said correction came to be made. The Courts below also observed that no court of competent jurisdiction has parsed any eviction order against the plaintiffs who are definitely in possession of the suit land.

In view of the aforesaid factual position, I fully agree with the observations of the Lower Appellate Court that imposition of condition of depositing of Rs. 6,000/- per crop in the Court during the pendency of the suit, upon the plaintiffs by the trial Court was quite unfair, unjust and unreasonable.

Thus, I find no reason to interfere in the well reasoned order passed by the Lower Appellate Court.

Dismissed.