R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) THIS is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 2.3.1998 passed by Addl. District Judge, Ambala, who affirmed the order dated 15.6.1998 passed by a Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ambala City, who allowed the application of the plaintiff-respondents under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and the parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding possession.
(2.) SOME facts can be noticed in the following manner:- Plaintiffs Naib Singh and others (Now respondents) filed a civil suit in the representative capacity alleging that they and other proprietors of village Kalawar are owners in possession of the land measuring 907 kanals 2 marlas situated in village Kalawar, Tehsil and District Ambala fully described in the head-note of the plaint and the case set up by the plaintiffs before the trial court was that earlier they filed a civil suit titled Sarup Singh etc. v. Gram Panchayat on 18.9.1980 in the court of Sub Judge IIIrd Class, Ambala and that the suit was not contested by the Gram Panchayat. Resultantly, an exparte decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs and other holding that they are owners in possession of the suit land. It was also alleged by the plaintiffs in the trial court that they are the proprietors of the village and in the revenue record the plaintiffs and others have not shown as owners according to Hasab Rasad Jare Khewat and that the Gram Panchayat has no connection whatsoever with the suit land. The suit was contested by the defendant Gram Panchayat, which pleaded that the decree relied upon by the plaintiffs passed on 3.9.1981 has already been set aside under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Moreover, the Gram Panchayat is the owner of the suit land since 1954 on the basis of mutation No. 288 sanctioned on 14.11.1954 and the Gram Panchayat had been exercising its proprietary right by auctioning the land in question from time to time and, therefore, the plaintiff have no right, title or interest in the property in dispute. The learned trial Court vide order dated 15.6.1998 allowed the application under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession. Yet there is another order in which the Gram Panchayat was directed not to auction the land. Since the trial court had allowed the application under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, therefore, the defendant was not satisfied by the order of the trial court and it filed an appeal before the Addl. District Judge, Ambala, who dismissed the appeal vide impugned order dated 2.9.1998 for the following reasons as given in paras 19 and 20 of the impugned order :- "19. It was argued on behalf of the plaintiffs that the suit land could not be said to be Shamlat Deh and the proprietors were the owners. In support of the it Gram Panchayat village Bhedpura v. The Addl. Director, Consolidation and others, 1997(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 259 : 1997(1) PLJ 535, Gram Panchayat Muradpur v. The State of Punjab and others, 1997(2) RCR(Civil) 689 (P&H) : 1997(1) PLJ 160, Des Raj and another v. The Gram Sabha of village Ladhot and another, 1981 PLJ 300 and Gram Panchayat, Ranjitgarh v. Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, 1998(1) RCR(Civil) 408 (P&H)(DB) : 1998(1) PLJ 123 were referred. In the last mentioned two authorities it was held that such lands did not fall within the definition of Shamlat Deh. 20. According to the revenue record the Gram Panchayat is the owner and the land is in possession of the different persons. The Gram Panchayat has been auctioning the suit land. On the other hand according to the civil court decree the proprietors are the owners and in joint possession of the suit property according to their shares. For these reasons the learned counsel lower court was justified in ordering to maintain status quo regarding the possession till the decision of the suit. The learned counsel lower court was also justified in staying the auction of the suit land by the Gram Panchayat because allowing auction of the land by the Gram Panchayat would have been prima facie against the civil court decree. As such I could not find any illegality and infirmity in the impugned orders. I affirm the same." Not satisfied with the orders of both the Courts, the present revision.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.;