LAWS(P&H)-1989-11-92

NIAZ MOHAMMAD AND OTHERS Vs. YASIN

Decided On November 16, 1989
Niaz Mohammad And Others Appellant
V/S
YASIN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Faridabad, dated 30th May, 1988, whereby the order of the trial Court dated 4th Feb. 1988 granting ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff was aside.

(2.) The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and correction entries in the Jamabandi and for permanent injunction as consequence thereof. They also moved an application under Order 39 rules 1 ana 2 the Code of Civil Procedure, restraining the defendant to dispossess them during the pendency of this suit. The trial Court found that the defend has no prima facie case in his favour and the balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiffs. Moreover, they will also suffer irreparable and injury to their property if stay is not granted to them against defendant. Consequently, ad interim injunction was granted vide or dated 4th Feb., 1988. In appeal the learned Additional District Judge found that there was no justification for the trial Court to prima facie the plaintiffs to be in possession of the suit land in the case of clear forthright revenue entries in favour of the defendant. Thus, the learned Additional District Judge found as a fact that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their plea of possession over the suit land, and, therefore were not entitled to any ad interim injunction.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there was no reason for the lower appellate Court to disturb the finding of the trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs and that the whole approach was wrong aid illegal. He further submitted that the entries relied upon by the learned Additional District Judge were not relevant as they were not recorded according to the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner. In support of his contention, he referred to Roop Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, 1988 (2) R.L.R. 255 and Amal Kumar and others Vs. Bhupinder Singh and others, 1976 PLJ 26. According to the learned counsel the plaintiffs being in possession of the suit land were entitled to the ad-interim injunction.