Ranjit Singh vs Ajmer Singh

N.K. Agrawal, J.—This is a revision petition by the defendant against the restraint orders passed by the trial Court and appellate Court.

A civil suit, seeking permanent injunction, has been filed by the plaintiff Ajmer Singh against his brother, Ranjit Singh. An application, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, was also filed by the plaintiff, seeking an order of restraint against the defendant so that the latter did not interfere with the possession of the plaintiff on the suit land. The said application was allowed by the trial Court by order dated August 5, 1997 and the defendant was restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the suit land. The defendant's appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, vide order dated July 29, 1998.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant has argued that a caveat was filed by the defendant in the trial Court on May 29, 1997 but the trial Court passed an ex parte order on June 13, 1997. This was not permissible in law in view of Section 148A of Code of Civil Procedure. It is explained by the learned counsel that where a caveat is filed, the trial Court cannot proceed with the matter unless the caveator is given notice and an opportunity to be heard. Since the trial Court passed an ex parte order, the entire proceedings, therefore, were a nullity. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in paragraphs No. 2, 4 and 5 of the plaint, no dates have been specified by the plaintiff, while describing the incidents of interference by the defendant. Besides, the verification appended to the plaint is also not in accordance with law, as provided in Order 6 Rule 15, Code of Civil Procedure.

The pleas now raised, with respect to the non-mentioning of the dates in paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 of the plaint and improper verification at the foot of the plaint, are yet to be looked into by the trial Court and, therefore, this Court would not express any opinion in this regard, it is to be further noticed that after the ex parte order was passed by the trial Court on June 13, 1997, the defendant appeared and filed reply to the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2. The defendant was represented by a counsel and the trial Court disposed of the application, seeking injunction, after hearing both the parties. In this light, the order of the trial Court cannot be said to be an illegal order. The appellate Court also gave to the defendant, as an appellant, full opportunity to put forward his case.

From the pleadings, it appears that the plaintiff has claimed to be in possession of the suit land as a co-sharer and also as a buyer. The plaintiff has stated that he has purchased the shares of the other co-sharers under sale deed dated April 30, 1997. The defendant has stated, in his reply, that he was in possession of the suit land as a tenant. The plaintiff has produced a copy of the jamabandi for the year 1991-92 and also copies of the Khasra Girdawaris entries for the period 1992 to 1997. Copy of the sale deed was also filed to show possession.

In the light of the above discussion, the orders of the learned trial Court and the appellate Court do not need any interference as these orders do not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity.

The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.