Ujagar Singh, J. - (1.) THE revision arises out of an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for ad -interim injunction in a suit filed on 5. 2. 1988 by the Petitioner for injunction against the Respondents restraining them from forcibly dispossessing him. In para No. 2 of the plaint it is stated that the boundary wall, with an iron gate, other construction in the plot and planting of trees exist in the suit property. Defendant No. 3 specifically denied this para in his written -statement. The trial Court vacated the temporary injunction already granted in favour of the Plaintiff -Petitioner Oil the ground that the Plaintiff -Petitioner alleged himself to be in illegal possession of the suit land and, therefore, it would not entitle him to the grant of temporary injunction as no irreparable injury could be suffered by him. The resolution of the Municipal Corporation deciding the lease to be given to Paramjit Singh Defendant was also taken into consideration. The appellate Court has gone into the detail while dismissing the appeal of the Plaintiff -Petitioner. Local Commissioner's report of 19th of September, 1988, after the order of the trial Court was passed on 2. 8. 1988. was given no importance specially because the Local Commissioner bad inspected the spot on 29. 7. 1988 but could give the report only on 19. 9. 1988, i e, about 2 1/2 months after the inspection and this report was said to have been made without notice to the contesting parties. The appellate Court has also noticed the fact as to how report of the Local Commissioner had tricked into the file after the order of the trial Court Copy of the Khasaia Girdawari for the year 1977 -78 and copy of the report of daily rojnamcha dated 21. 11.1988 were referred to Copy of Khasra Girdawari revealed that the plot in dispute owned by the Punjab Government and now occupied by the Municipal Corporation is being used for holding cattle fair. Said report of the Rojnamcha revealed that no notice was issued by the Revenue Officer before passing the order of correction of Khasra Girdawari These two documents were, therefore, ignored as of no importance by the appellate Court. The appellate Court was of the view that the Plaintiff had managed to create some evidence to show prima facie that the Plaintiff -Petitioner in possession. The above noted type of circumferences cannot be taken notice of as the same has arisen not out of natural sequence of events but out of events created by human agency with a particular effort.
(2.) THE counsel for the Petitioner has laid stress only on the ground that he had made some constructions which were existing on the date of the suit and, therefore, a prima facie case was made out for continuance of temporary injunction in favour of the Plaintiff -Petitioner and the lower courts have erred in dismissing his application. The counsel for Shri Paramjit Singh Respondent No. 4 has shown me a copy of the application submitted by him on 4. 9. 1987 to the Municipal Corporation and another application repeating almost the same term on 22. 1. 1988 again to the Municipal Corporation for lease of the plot in dispute in his favour. Letter dated 13. 5. 1988 from the Municipal Corporation has also been shown and therein possession was to be delivered after execution of the lease deed. This Respondent is said to have deposited an amount of Rs. 8250/ - in the treasury on 13. 5. 1988 and has submitted that there was no prima facie case made out in favour of the Plaintiff -Petitioner.
(3.) THE counsel for Respondent M/s. Sokhi Engineering Works, Amritsar has also laid emphasis that this Respondent had deposited an amount of Rs. 38,000/ -, Rs. 5,26,717/ -, Rs. 34,000/ - and Rs. 48,000/ - in the treasury in respect of the plot in dispute upto the month of March 1983. 5 After hearing the counsel for the parties at length and also taking into consideration the facts of the case, I am of the view that as held by the Court below, no prima facie case seems to have been made out in favour of the Plaintiff -Petitioner. The conduct of the Plaintiff -Petitioner in procuring false evidence to support his false case goes a long way against him. The property in dispute looks to be a valuable piece of land within the Limits of Municipal Corporation and the Plaintiff -Petitioner wanted to at least establish his alleged illegal possession with the help of the Court and in my view, he has failed to established his case even prima facie. There is no explanation as to why tae inspection made by the Local Commissioner in the month of July before the Defendant -Respondent appeared in the Court and than to submit his report long after the trial Court vacated the ex parte injunction obtained by the Plaintiff -Petitioner. 6. In view of the observations made above, this Civil Revision is dismissed in limine.;