Sohan Singh vs Gurdas Chand and anr.

N.C. Jain, J.

This revision has been directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar dated 5.10.1989 by which the injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff by the trial Court was vacated.

The facts which have given rise to the filing of the present revision petition are that the plaintiff revisionpetitioner filed a suit, restraining the defendant, Gurdas Chand from alienating the suit land to anybody else and from dispossessing the plaintiffpetitioner from the disputed land pending the suit. The plaintiff claims to be in possession of the disputed land in pursuance of a sale deed dated 3051986. The sale deed, according to the petitioner, was executed by Rur Singh in his favour. Upon entering into defence by way of filing of the written statement, it was averred by Gurdas Chand defendant No. 1 that there was an agreement of sale in his facour dated 1951986 executed by Rur Singh defendant No. 2. Rur Singh did not execute the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1 which led to the filing of a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 1951986 in which the plaintiffpetitioner was impleaded as defendant. It was averred that the suit was decreed, both against Rur Singh the original owner of the land and against the plaintiff. On the basis of these facts, it has been observed by the first appellate Court that defendant No. 1 was reaping the fruit of the decree passed in his favour and, therefore, the plaintiffpetitioner was not entitled to any injunction. In support of the argument, reliance was placed on Thakur Singh v. Jagat Singh and another, 1985(2) PLR 493 in which it has been held that if a party obtains a decree from the Court, it should not be deprived of the fruit thereof.

It has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiffpetitioner that his client is in possession of the disputed land in pursuance of the sale deed dated 30.5.1986. The factum of the plaintiffpetitioner being in possession of the disputed land is not disputed before me, but has been argued that since a decree has been passed against Rur Singh, the original owner of the land, as well as against the plaintiff, no injunction can be granted in a second suit and that the previous decree would be res judicata. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is no merit in the revision petition. It has always been a well settled principle of law that a party is entitled to reap the fruit of the decree and that its execution should not be stayed in another suit. Admittedly, the plaintiff did not file an appeal against the decree passed by the trial Court to which he was a party. He did not file any application for setting aside the decree either by averting that he did not engage the counsel who represented him before the Court. In view thereof, the execution of the decree passed in favour of Gurdas Chand cannot be stayed by granting an injunction in a subsequently instituted suit, challenging the decree passed in the previous suit. In the light of the observations made above, the revision petition is devoid of any merit and is ordered to be dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Nothing observed in this order of mine or even in the order of the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar would amount to an expression of an opinion on the merits of the case and the same will not have even the slightest bearing on mind of the Subordinate Judge who is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously and preferably by the end of the year 1990.