M.M. Punchhi, J. - (1.) A parcel of land recorded as banjar qadim in the Jamabandi for the year 1983 -84 is shown to be in occupation of Gram Panchayat, Naulakha, tehsil Sirhind, district Patiala. The same land was allegedly auctioned on lease to a few persons by the aforesaid Gram Panchayat in the month of May, 1985. Finding the attitude of Labh Singh and others, the present Petitioners, obstructive to the user to which the land was sought to be put by the Panchayat, the Panchayat filed a suit for permanent injunction and prayed for a temporary injunction in the meantime. The trial Court declined the prayer for temporary injunction solely on the ground that the Panchayat had not put before it the auction papers and details relating to the deposit of lease money etc. The appellate Court took the view that" those details were unnecessary and that since the Panchayat was shown to be owner in possession of the property in dispute, it was entitled to the temporary injunction. This has given rise to the present revision petition by Labh Singh and other Petitioners.
(2.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the revision Petitioners that since a question of title had arisen, the civil Court had no jurisdiction. Attention has been invited to the relevant portions of the order of the lower appellate Court in which the plea of the Petitioner that the Panchayat was not the owner of the land in dispute and rather under the orders of the Director of Consolidation, it required to be disposed of in a different way, has been brought to the fore. The learned Judge discussed that question but took the prima facie view that the Gram Panchayat will suffer an irreparable loss if its possession over the land was not protected and that the relief of injunction was primarily to be given on the basis of possession. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I find no infirmity in the view expressed by the lower appellate Court. Any reference to the title of the land is only in the passing. No opinion has been expressed on the question of title as seemingly none arises in the instant case. If a question of title is to be raised by any of the parties, resort can be had to Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961. The present is a suit for injunction merely on the basis of possession. Thus, finding no jurisdictional error in the order of the lower appellate Court, I order dismissal of this petition but without any order as to costs.;