Gram Panchayat Rajowal vs Inder Singh and ors.

J.V. Gupta, J.

This petition is directed against the order dated 11.10.1998 of Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the order of the trial Court declining ad interim order of injunction was set aside and the defendants were restrained from interfering with the possession of the suit land till the disposed of the suit.

Inder Singh and Harnam Singh have filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendant including the Gram Panchayat village Rajowal from interfering with their possession of the land measuring 111 Kanals situated in Village Rajowal, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. Along with the suit, they filed an application for adinterm injunction restraining them to interfere with their possession. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court primarily on the ground that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred under Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act to entertain any question with respect to the right or interest in any Shamilat deh property. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, in a very detailed judgment, found that the plaintiff is claiming protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of property Act; Civil Court in the present case has prima facie jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit; to protect possession of the plaintiffs who claimed that they are bona fide purchasers for value of the land which, at one time, was allotted to a displaced person by the Rehabilitation Department. Since the possession of the plaintiffs in suit land was admitted by the defendants. It was directed that the defendant are restrained from interfering with the possession of the suit land till the disposal of the suit.

The main arguments raised on behalf of defendantGram Panchayat in this petition is that since jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in view of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, no such injunction could be issued by the lower appellant court.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in this petition. It is not disputed that already an issue has been framed by the trial Court as to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court which matter is still pending for adjudication. Moreover, the plaintiff is claiming to be a bona fide purchaser for value in the year 1970. He has raised construction over the suit land and is in possession thereof since then. According to the lower appellate Court, a prima facie case is made out for granting ad interim order of injunction. Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstnces of the case, I do not find any jurisdiction for interference in the impugned order at this stage. Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

In order to expedite the hearing of the suit,it is directed that the parties will lead evidence at their own responsibility. However, dasti summons be given if so advised, as contemplated under Order 16 Rule 7A, Civil Procedure Code.