N.C. Jain, J. - (1.) This revision petition has been against the order of the Additional District Judge Jind, by which the respondents have been restrained from cutting and selling the Peepal tree. The trial Court declined the injunction where as the appellant Court has granted the same on the ground that the gram Panchayat did not pass any resolution for selling the peepal tree and that in the absence of a resolution no Panchayat can act.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner Gram Panchayat Shri K.S.Kundu has argued before this Court that the resolution was passed by the gram panchayat and the same has been placed non the record of this case by way of production of additional evidence. According to the counsel for the plaintiffs -respondents before this Court, this resolution has been fabricated after making certain alteration and overwriting, otherwise the same would have been filed along with the written statement or the reply. Be that as it may, the case of the plaintiffs in the plaint is that the peepal tree is more than 100 years old and it is worshipped by the residents of the village including the plaintiffs and its cutting would amount to hurt the feelings of the residents of the village. Not only that, it was offered before the Bench on December 19,1989 that the plaintiffs were willing to deposit Rs.3000/ - as part of the auction money for which the peepal tree was being auctioned by the gram Panchayat. The amount as deposited. The deposit of Rs.3000/ - does not mean the fixation of any price of the peepal tree which is stated to be worth Rs.10,000/ -. In the considered view of this Court, the plaintiffs are entitled to the confirmation of the injunction order on two grounds. In the first instance, no resolution was placed before the trial Court. The production of the resolution in this Court at the time of revision petition would not be a substitute for the production of the same at the trial stage. The resolution would be produced before the trial Court and proved in accordance with law and thereafter its evidentiary value would be adjudged. The second ground on which the plaintiffs are entitled to the confirmation of injunction order is that if the plaintiffs are able to prove their case that the peepal tree is worshipped, it can have some bearing on the decision in the main case. In any case, all these questions will have to be gone into by the trial Court. The refusal of injunction would mean that the suit would become infructuous. The deposit of Rs.3000/ - would remain with the Registrar and shall be transferred in due course to the trial Court. The trial Court would order the disbursement of the amount at the time of rendering final judgment.
(3.) Since the trial of the suit has been delayed on account of the filing of the revision petition the interest of justice would require that the suit is disposed of expeditiously. It is accordingly ordered that the suit be decided as expeditiously as can be done by the trial Court and in any case it must be decided within, a period of six months from today. No cost.;