Gokal Chand Mital, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision by Plaintiff against the appellate order of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Ambala maintaining the order of the trial Court refusing to grant temporary injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with his possession during the pendency of the suit.
(2.) THE Petitioner filed a suit for injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with his possession on the facts that as a result of agreement of sale, dated 26th December, 1974, he had been delivered possession of the agricultural land which was proposed to be sold to him on receipt of part of the sale consideration. It was further alleged that instead of selling the land to him the vendor -Defendant sold it to the remaining Defendants, who wanted to take possession from him on account of purchase by them. Along with the suit an application for temporary injunction was filed in which ex parte injunction was granted, but after notice to the opposite party, the same was vacated by the trial Court, - -vide order dated 10th June, 1977 on the findings that the Plaintiff has not been able to make out a prima jade case as neither the agreement of sale has been produced on the record nor he is shown in possession of the land in the revenue records whereas on the contrary the vendee -Defendants are shown in possession thereof and there was not a single girdawari entry in favour of the Plaintiff. The order of the trial Court, on appeal, was maintained by the Senior Subordinate Judge by a well written order, dated 12th June, 1978. In revision before me, apart from the fact that it is not shown to me that how the orders of the Courts below suffer from illegality or irregularity in exercise of their jurisdiction, on facts of this case I find that the Plaintiff has no case, whatsoever. The suit and the injunction application appears to be a clever device to obtain possession forcibly after he was able to secure an order of temporary injunction from the Court which would be manifest from the facts hereinafter reproduced.
(3.) THE Petitioner himself filed an earlier suit for possession by specific performance of the land in dispute in this suit against the vendor and subsequent vendees, who are also Defendants in this suit. From a reading of acertified copy of the plaint of that suit which has been produced before me by the counsel for the Respondents and which could not be controverted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, I find in the heading of the plaint the following words are written: Suit for possession by specific performance.... In the prayer clause the following words are mentioned; that it is, therefore, prayed that a decree for possession of the land fully described in the heading and para No. 1 of the plaint ...be passed in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendants. In the body of the plaint barring para 11, which shall be reproduced a little later no averment is made that the Plaintiff was ever delivered possession in pursuance of the agreement of sale or that he came into possession of the land, subject -matter of the agreement of sale, before filing of the suit and this is very important to be noticed as in the present suit out of which this revision has arisen, the Plaintiff has categorically stated that he was delivered possession of the land in dispute under the agreement of sale. However, if any doubt about possession is left that is clarified in para 11 of the plaint which is reproduced hereunder: That the Plaintiff is now entitled to get possession of the land in dispute and is also entitled to get agreement, dated \ 26th December, 1974 specifically enforced through the Court on payment of Rs. 3,700 the balance of the sale consideration of the land in dispute So at the time of filing of the previous suit the Plaintiff was admittedly out of possession and when the present suit was filed, he did not allege that after the filing of the previous suit how he came in possession of the land in dispute and in what manner. All that he has stated is that in pursuance of the agreement of sale he entered into possession of the land in dispute which fact is specifically missing from the previous plaint and clearly shows that a false allegation has been levelled in this plaint in the second suit, so that if somehow he is able to obtain an interim injunction he may enter into possession of the land on the strength of the order of the Court. Moreover, there is no revenue entry in favour of the Plaintiff whereas the vendee -Defendants are shown to be in possession in the revenue record. On these facts I will hold that the Plaintiff is not in possession of the land dispute and as such has no prima facie case.;