- (1.) Plaintiffs Malkeet Singh etc. having failed to secure temporary injunction in both the courts below, have filed this revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution assailing orders of both the courts below declining temporary injunction to the plaintiffs/petitioners. Plaintiffs alleged that suit land measuring 36 Kanals 12 Marlas situated in village Miani and suit land measuring 40 Kanals situated in village Goidwal Sahib was allotted by Central Government to plaintiffs' father who kept on paying rent thereof regularly to the Government. After death of plaintiff's father, plaintiffs are now in possession of the suit land. However, defendants threatened to auction the suit land, necessitating the filing of suit for permanent injunction. Plaintiffs sought temporary during pendency of the suit restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land forcibly and from auctioning the same and from interfering in possession of the plaintiffs thereon.
(2.) Defendants/respondents No. 1 and 2 pleaded that jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred by Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 as the suit land is owned by Gram Panchayat of village Goindwal Sahib. It was also pleaded that the suit is bad for non-joinder of said Gram Panchayat, which is necessary party to the suit being owner of the suit land. Defendant No. 1 is Member Panchayat whereas defendant No. 2 is Lamberdar but defendants No. 1 and 2 have no concern with the suit land. Averments of the plaintiffs that they are allottees of the suit land or that they are in possession thereof have been denied. It was pleaded that suit land is meant for benefit of the village. It was also pleaded that suit land had already been auctioned on 27.06.2009 for lease for one year in favour to highest bidder Gurdev Singh. It was pleaded that plaintiffs never came in possession of the suit land and if their possession is proved, the same is illegal.
(3.) Defendants/respondents No. 3 to 5 also broadly took the same stand.;