Tara Chand and others vs Satya Wati and others

P.C. Pandit, J.—The dispute in the instant case relates to a vacant site 13 Biswas in area, out of Khasra No. 4330/ 1440 measuring 1 Bigha, situate in the town of Dhuri, district Sangrur. The parties to this litigation are the descendants of one Radha Krishan. Satya Wati, defendant No. 1, daughter of Lachhmi Narain, one of the sons of Radha Krishan, got an order of ejectment against Chanan Ram, defendant No. 2, in respect of the site in question. When she tried to get possession of the said site on the basis of the ejectment order. Tara Chand, another son of Radha Krishan, and his son Virinder Kumar, plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2, obstructed the delivery of possession. Subsequently, they also filed objections under Order 21, rule 98, Civil Procedure Code, on the ground that they were the owners and in possession of the site in dispute. On their objections having been dismissed right up to this Court, they alongwith the descendants of the other two sons 6f Radha Krishan, namely Babu Ram and Nand Lal, brought a suit under Order 21, Rule 103 of the CPC for a declaration that they were in possession of the site as owners. As a consequential relief, they sought an injunction restraining Satya Wati from taking possession of the said site. Along with the plaint, the plaintiffs also filed an application for a temporary injunction restraining Satya Wati from getting possession of the site during the pendency of the suit. The trial Court had first granted an ex-parte temporary injunction as prayed for, but subsequently it was vacated at the instance of Satya Wati. Thereafter, the plaintiffs Sled an appeal against that order, but the same was rejected by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Sangrur. Against that decision, the present revision petition has been filed by the plaintiffs.

It may be mentioned that during the pendency of the revision petition in this Court, Satya Wati died on 14th January, 1968. An application for bringing her husband Dr. Raghunandan Singh, as her legal representative, on the record was filed on 22nd January 1968 and the same was granted by me on 6th of March, 1968.

After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no interference is called for in the order under revision. The objections filed by the petitioners under Order 21, Rule 98 had been dismissed. It means that it was held that the obstruction caused by them, in the delivery of possession to the respondent in execution of the decree against Chanan Ram, was without any just cause This order was not reversed, when the petitioners came in revision to this Court against it. If the temporary injunction prayed for is granted to the petitioners, it would virtually amount to undoing the decision by which their objection petition under Order 21, rule 98, Code of Civil Procedure, had been rejected. Besides, the grant of a temporary injunction during the pendency of a suit is primarily a discretionary matter and in the circumstances of this case, it cannot be held that this discretion had been exercised by the courts below in a perverse manner, which might entitle the petitioners to get those orders reversed by this Court. The consequence is that this petition fails and is dismissed, but with no order as to costs,

It might be mentioned that the counsel for the respondent had undertaken that his client would not alienate the site in dispute during the pendency of the suit.

I direct the trial court to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible.