Rajiv Narain Raina, J. - (1.) THE Gurudwara Namdhari Saad Sangat Kahnuwan Road, Batala, District Gurdaspur filed a suit inter alia against the petitioner seeking permanent injunction restraining it and other defendants from interfering in the possession of the Gurudwara. The defendant -petitioner filed a written statement and contested the case on the ground that the suit property was not a Gurudwara but a Naamdhari Dharamshala which Dharamshala is run under the management and control of Gurudwara Shri Bhaini Saab, Village Shri Bhaini Saab, Ludhiana. The plaintiff - -respondent Nos. 1 and 2 applied for an ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with S. 151 CPC which was allowed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala. The temporary injunction was issued in favour of the plaintiff. However, appeal against the order granting temporary injunction is said to be pending in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur which is fixed for 03rd April, 2014. Having secured the interim injunction on 27th September, 2013 on facing resistance in the implementation of the order at the hands of the petitioner the respondent herein and his codefendants in the suit filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2 -A, CPC praying for a direction to the SHO, Civil Lines, Batala, respondent No. 3 to remove the lock put on the main gate of the suit property. This application has been allowed by the trial Court by the impugned order dated 25th January, 2014 with a direction to open the lock and to hand over possession to the Gurudwara plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2. It is not disputed that the temporary injunction order has not been vacated or varied by the trial Court or any superior court and is therefore ad interim final. The Only argument raised against the subsequent order is that breaking lock and putting party to possession for disobedience and breach of injunction is not warranted in law as the Court can attach the property of person found guilty of breach or send him to civil prison for a term of three months. The jurisdiction of the trial Court in passing the impugned order has been questioned on the ground that the relief now given was neither claimed in the suit nor in the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2. It is contended that prior to the passing of the ad interim injunction order the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Batala had exercised jurisdiction under S. 145(1) and 146(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 over the suit property by order dated 20th May, 2013 and had appointed the Station House Officer, Civil Lines, Batala as the Receiver of the suit property. This fact was not disclosed by the respondents in their suit for permanent injunction nor in the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC that restrictions had been imposed under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance of peace. It is argued that since an order was passed under S. 145 Cr.P.C. respondent Nos. 1 and 2 could not be seen in possession of disputed property and in this manner, the validity of the order dated 27th September, 2013 passed on the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 is assailed before this Court in this petition and in the Grounds of Appeal. It is not disputed before me that the order of temporary injunction passed by the Civil Court continues to operate.
(2.) I have read the order of temporary injunction with care. I find from it that the trial Court depended on several relevant factors to issue ad interim injunction. The trial Court found that the property in dispute was purchased by the plaintiff and it was so reflected in the Jamabandi for the year 1969 -1970. The property had been purchased from Satpal s/o. Gopal Dass s/o. Sunder Dass by registered sale deed dated 27th January, 1976 through plaintiff No. 2 Joginder Singh. The property in dispute is situated in the thickly populated area of Kahnuwan Road, Batala and the Gurudwara was constructed over the plot 35 years ago. An electric connection has been installed in the suit property in the name of the plaintiffs and the account number is mentioned in the order. There is a gas agency as well operated from the suit property which stands in the name of President, Gurudwara Namdhari Saad Sangat Kahnuwan Road. For these reasons, prima facie the defendants were restrained from unlawfully dispossessing the plaintiffs by interfering in their peaceful possession in the property. The ad interim injunction granted by the civil court after hearing both the parties would in my view supersede the orders passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate under S. 145 Cr.P.C. If the complaint is that the pendency of proceedings under S. 145 Cr.P.C. and the appointment of Receiver was not brought to the notice of the civil court at the time of passing the ad interim injunction order, the defendants can take no advantage of that since they were present and contesting the case before the trial Court and were free to bring such fact to the notice of the court or whatever material they thought was in their favour disentitling the respondent to ad interim relief. No case for interference is made out. Dismissed.;