- (1.) E challenge in this revision petition, preferred by Gopi son of Puran petitioner -defendant (for brevity "the defendant"), is to the impugned order dated 25.4.2013, vide which, the application for ad interim injunction, under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC, filed by Sarwan Kumar son of Birbal respondent -plaintiff (for short "the plaintiff"), in the suit for a decree of permanent injunction, was allowed by the trial court and the defendant was restrained from dismantling the water course running through the suit land till the disposal of the main case and judgment dated 11.2.2014, by virtue of which, his appeal was dismissed as well, by the appellate Court.
(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context.
(3.) EX facie, the argument of learned counsel that since no water course is in existence as per the site plan (Annexure P1), so, the Courts below committed the legal mistake to grant injunction to the plaintiff, lacks merit. As is evident from the record that the plaintiff has filed the civil suit for a decree of permanent injunction along with an injunction application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC to restrain the defendant from dismantling the water course running through the land in litigation till the disposal of the main case. The defendant contested the claim of plaintiff, filed the written statement, strongly denied all the allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. In order to substantiate his plea, the plaintiff has placed on record the sanctioned Warabandi/site plan and jamabandi for the year 2007 -08 indicating the existence of water course in question at the spot. In fact, the defendant has not denied the existence of water course in question, but he has claimed it at his personal water course. He has failed to substantiate his plea and has not produced any document on record in this relevant connection. Taking into consideration the relevant attending facts and circumstances, the trial Court granted the injunction in favour of plaintiff, by means of impugned order dated 25.4.2013.;