VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 24-04-2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Hisar, vide which the appeal filed by the respondent-Municipal Committee against the order dated 8-09-2004 passed by the learned trial Court granting injunction in favour of the petitioner, has been allowed and the application moved by the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC seeking temporary injunction against the respondent-Municipal committee has been declined.
(2.) THE learned lower Appellate Court reversed the findings of the learned trial Court by observing as under :- "In the present case even eight members of Municipal Committee had disowned the resolution dated 27-8-2003 on which an enquiry was held by the then S.D.M. who had written letter on the basis of which suspension order dated 20-2-2004 was passed by Deputy Commissioner, Hisar, which is a valid document and since there is no resolution in favour plaintiff, so he is having no prima facie case in his favour. Moreover, the resolution earlier executed in favour of plaintiff was also a forged and collusion between the office bearers of defendant and there was no compliance of mandatory provision of law. So plaintiff has no balance of convenience in his favour. Moreover, he is having no irreparable loss. It is also pertinent to mention here that this Court is within its competency to take subsequent events which had come to its notice by passing of order dated 20-2-2004 by Deputy Commissioner and 30.5.05 by the Commissioner. To support this view, reliance can be placed on Jaskaur Singh's case and Zarina Begum's case (supra). It is also mentioned here that before passing order dated 20.4.2004 by Deputy Commissioner, Hisar and before passing order dated 30-5-2005 by Commissioner, Hisar, no notice was required to be given to the plaintiff as the lease in his favour was void. To support this view, reliance can be placed on Kashmiri Lal's case, Karam Singh's case, Baldev Raj Sharma's case and Mulakh Raj Mutneja's case (supra). So lower court had not taken into account all the aforesaid aspects and order is liable to be set aside." The finding recorded by the learned lower Appellate Court is contrary to the admission made by the respondent-Municipal Committee in the written statement, which reads as under :- "4. That para No. 4 of the plaint is correct to the extent that the disputed land was lying vacant for many years and no income was coming. It is wrong that the disputed land was not cultivable. It is wrong that there were 8 to 10 feet deep pits, but there were minor pits.
(3.) . That para 5 of the plaint is wrong and is not admitted to be correct. It is correct that the plaintiff applied to take the disputed land and in this regard the Municipal Committee by passing resolution gave the disputed land on patta for 12 years for cultivation of herbal with some conditions and after that the plaintiff is continuing in possession of the disputed possession and at this time also the plaintiff is in possession as pattedar. 6. That in reply to para No. 8 of the plaint, it is stated that the plaintiff is in possession of the disputed land as pattedar." Thus, it would be clear that the learned lower Appellate Court has recorded a finding which is an outcome of misreading of the pleadings of the parties and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the revision petition is accepted and the order of the learned lower Appellate Court is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored. Petition allowed.;