MADAN, J. - (1.) SINCE the controversy raised by the parties in these four revision petitions is common being based on identical facts arising out of common impugned order, these petitions have been heard together at the joint request of the parties and are being finally decided by this common judgment.
(2.) IN Revision Petition Nos. 1468/99 and 1470/99 Jhavarmal (defendant) challenged the common order dated 15. 9. 1999 of the Additional District Judge No. 1 Sikar in appeal Nos. 54/99 & 55/99 whereby the order dated 23. 8. 99 of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn) Fatehpur (Sikar) granting temporary injunction in civil suit No. 7/96 in favour of plaintiffs Purshottam & Shankarlal, has been modified. In Revision Petition Nos. 1640/99 & 1641/99 Purshottamlal & Shankarlal (plaintiffs) are aggrieved by the order dated 15. 9. 99 of the Additional District Judge No. 1 Sikar who while deciding civil appeal Nos. 54/99 & 55/99 of the defendant (Jhavarmal) set aside the temporary injunction granted by the trial Court by its order dated 23. 8. 1999, and then directed the parties to vacate the suit property and hand over the same to the Nazir of the trial Court and that the possession thereof shall remain in custody of the trial court till final disposal of the suit. These petitions arise out of the aforesaid orders having been passed on the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction in their civil suit filed before Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Fatehpur (Sikar) for permanent injunction. It is pertinent to mention here that cross suit has also been filed by Jhavarmal against Purshottam and others for declaration and permanent injunction, besides application for temporary injunction, claiming his possession over the suit property since 1948. The case of Jhavarmal in his reply to Purshottam's application for temporary injunction was that on the basis of adverse possession since 1948 over the suit property he has acquired ownership thereon and thereby he has been residing there alongwith his family inasmuch as he has got constructed one kuchcha room, kitchen, latrine and tinshed etc. on the suit land and that apart Purshottam in his reply to the application filed by Jhavarmal for temporary injunction has admitted in his cross suit his possession over the suit land. On the contrary, the case of Purshottam in his reply to Jhavarmal's application for temporary injunction was that prior to 14. 2. 96 there was no possession of Jhavarmal nor he had any ownership over the suit land; and that despite there being temporary injunction in his earlier suit against Jhavarmal, on 14. 2. 1996 Jhavarmal's son Radheyshyam committed criminal trespass by forcibly taking possession of the suit land, for which criminal court has found Jhavarmal guilty for such criminal trespass.
(3.) AN application for site inspection was also filed by the plaintiffs. One Advocate commissioner was appointed to inspect the site on 16. 1. 1996. He had prepared the site plan and also submitted his inspection report to the trial court, which shows that on 16. 1. 1996 the suit property was in possession of Purshottam & Others; that there was no tin-shed, latrine, pucca room etc. on the suit land; that, the trial court had directed all the parties to maintain status quo as on 19. 1. 1996, but on 14. 2. 1996, Radheyshyam s/o Jhavarmal allegedly in collusion with Suresh Kumar (defendant No. 2) is purported to have trespassed over the suit land by erecting there tin sheds thereon, whereupon power of attorney holder of Purshottam lodged an F. I. R. at police station Fatehpur on 15. 2. 1996 upon which police investigated the matter and produced challan before the criminal court, which in criminal case No. 216/96 after due trial, recorded findings of guilt against Jhavarmal's son and Jhavarmal himself and thereby convicted them of the offence punishable u/sec. 447, IPC, on 4. 5. 1999. It is the case of Purshottam that as the suit property had been trespassed in collusion with defendant No. 2 Suresh Kumar, cross suit was filed on 24. 2. 1996 by Jhavarmal for declaration and permanent injunction alongwith temporary injunction in application (TI) No. 14/96, and wherein Jhavarmal admitted ownership of the suit land as that of Purshottam but the Jhavarmal pleaded his adverse possession thereon. Application for appointment of commissioner was moved, whereupon Shri Girdharilal Nirmal Advocate, was appointed Commissioner who inspected the site on 27. 5. 1996, and then submitted his report alongwith site plan. Even another Commissioner Shri Rajkumar Sharma Advocate inspected the site on 5. 1. 1997 and he too submitted his inspection report alongwith site plan. The learned trial Court heard both the parties on their TI Application Nos. 4/96 & 14/96 moved under Order 39 Rules 1 &2 CPC and by its common judgment dated 23. 8. 1999 accepted TI Application dated 12. 1. 1996 of Purshottamlal & Shankarlal and granted temporary injunction by directing Jhavarmal & Suresh Kumar to deliver possession of the suit land to them (plaintiffs) and till final disposal, not to interfere with their possession, title, and peaceful use either at their instance or through any agent. Thus, TI Application of Jhavarmal was dismissed, against which Jhavarmal preferred two Civil Misc. Appeals Nos. 54/99 & 55/99 before the Addl. District Judge No. 1, Sikar, who by its judgment dated 15. 9. 99 set aside the judgment dated 23. 8. 99 of the trial Court but issued temporary injunction directing both the parties not to sell the suit property and maintain status-quo and further directed the parties to vacate the suit land and deliver the possession thereof to the authorised person i. e. (Nazir) so appointed by the trial Court. Hence, these revision petitions have been preferred by both these parties. ;