LATEEF Vs. RAVINDER SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is defendant No. 1 in Civil Suit titled S. Ravinder Singh and another v. Mohd Lateef and others, awaiting disposal before Learned Munsiff, Jammu. Respondent No. 1, while filing civil suit for grant of permanent injunction decree, also filed an application under Order 39 CPC for grant of ad-interim injunction. The case set up before the learned Trial Judge was that respondents 1 and 2 (plaintiff in suit) were in possession of a plot of land measuring one kanal ten marlas falling under Khasra No. 2285 min situated at Village Sunjwani District Jammu and that petitioner and respondents 3 and 7 (defendants in the Suit) without any right or interest in the suit land were interfering in their peaceful possession over the suit land.

(2.) Learned Trial Judge vide order dated 20th March 2012 allowed application and made interim order passed earlier on 25th August 2009, absolute. Petitioner and respondents 3 to 7, were accordingly directed not to interfere with suit land, till disposal of the suit, Learned Trial Judge, on going through application and record placed on file, held respondents 1 & 2 to have made out a prima facie case in their favour as they were shown in possession of suit land in revenue records. It was found that suit land was State land and respondents 1 and 2 could only claim possessory rights over it and that they had a right to have their possessory rights protected against third person. Learned Trial Judge opined that balance of convenience tilted in favour of respondents 1 and 2 and that they were likely to be exposed to irreparable loss in the event interim injunction was withheld.

(3.) Trial court order dated 20th March 2012 came to be questioned by present petitioner in Civil First Miscellaneous Appeal before Principal District & Sessions Judge, Jammu. Petitioner claimed to be in possession of the suit land and to have even got a case FIR No. 185/2009 under section 447, 323, 427, 382 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act, registered against respondents 1 and 2 at Police Station Bahu Fort, when respondent 1 and 2 on 12.08.2009, with their sympathizers, indulged in rioting and trespassed into suit land and committed other offences alleged in the complaint. It was pleaded that as respondents 1 and 2 were not in possession of suit land, they were not entitled to any protection under Order 39 CPC. The court below was said to have not appreciated the matter in right perspective & also not to have looked at the record available on file.