Civil Revision No. 6779 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6779 of 2009 Date of decision: 6.5.2010 Gram Panchayat Alipur Viran ...Petitioner Versus Amar Singh and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Gehlawat, Advocate for the respondent No.1. S.D.ANAND, J. The plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction for the restraint of petitioner-defendant from dispossessing them from the land in suit and also from auctioning that land. Along with the suit, a plea for the grant of interim relief (restraining defendant-Gram Panchayat from auctioning that land) was also filed. The plea came to be negatived by the learned Trial Court by observing that there was nothing on record to prove that the plaintiffs-respondents are owners of that land. It also observed that it is only the plaintiff-respondent Amar Singh who was in possession of that land but only in terms of a lease agreement for a year and he had to vacate that land after that lease period was over. In appeal, however, the learned Ist Appellate Court, held Civil Revision No. 6779 of 2009 -2- **** that the plaintiffs-respondents are owners of the land in suit. On that finding, defendant-petitioner was restrained from auctioning the land in suit for the period 2010-11 onwards during the pendency of the suit. It was noticed by the learned Ist Appellate Court, in the course of para 13 of the order itself, that the land in suit had been auctioned by the Gram Panchayat in favour of Amar Singh (plaintiffs- respondents) for the period 2007-08 and 2009-2010. It also noticed that the Jamabandi entries for the period 2001-02 described the land as “Araji Matruka Bau Tamam Gram Panchayat Deh” and the Panchayat which had been recorded to be in possession thereof through the lease holder. The learned Ist Appellate Court also noticed certain documentation placed on record by the defendant- petitioner to prove that land was being auctioned by it for the last number of years. In the light of the above quoted facts noticed by the learned Ist Appellate Court in the order under challenge itself, it is apparent that there was no justification for the allowance of the appeal. Needless to reiterate, the plaintiff has to prove prima facie case, balance of convenience and element of irreparable injury in order to request for grant of ad-interim relief. The land to be auctioned by the Panchayat would fill the coffers of the Gram Panchayat. Respondent-plaintiff Amar Singh cannot be allowed to retain the possession of that land after the lease period is over. There is no balance of convenience for the grant of interim relief. Civil Revision No. 6779 of 2009 -3- **** The plaintiffs-respondents would not suffer any irreparable injury by negativing of the injunction application. In the light of foregoing discussion, the appeal shall stand allowed. The impugned order dated 29.9.2009 granted by learned Ist Appellate Court shall stand set aside. The order dated 6.5.2008 granted by the learned Trial Court shall stand upheld. The stay application filed by plaintiffs-respondents shall stand negatived. However, in the circumstances of the case, the learned Trial Court is directed to dispose of the main suit itself by or on 14.6.2010. The acknowledgment (of a copy of this order) issued by the concerned Judicial Officer shall be forwarded to the Registry of this Court. Learned Sessions Judge shall himself maintain a tab to ensure that the case is disposed of by afore-mentioned date. May 06, 2010 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge