C.R No.6518 of 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R No.6518 of 2010 Date of order: 17.1.2011 Gorakh Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus Nath Ram and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vivem Rattan, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2. JASWANT SINGH, J By filing the instant petition, petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution for quashing the order dated 17.8.2010 (P.8) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur affirming the order dated 3.12.2008 (P.6) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Dhuri whereby the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC for grant of interim injunction filed by the plaintiffs- petitioners has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-petitioners filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owner in possession of agricultural land as described in the head note of the plaint situated in village Mallu Majra, Tehsil Dhuri as per jamabandi for the year 2004-05 on the basis of registered sale deeds No.2712-13 dated 3.10.1994 with a further C.R No.6518 of 2010 #2# relief that the entire partition proceedings qua the rights of the plaintiffs are null and void. Upon notice, defendant-respondents No.1 & 2 filed written statement and resisted the claim of the plaintiff-petitioners by raising preliminary objections that partition proceedings have already become final by way of ROR No.526 decided on 1.3.1994 by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab. It was further submitted that the plaintiff- petitioners are alleged to have purchased 12 Bigha 10 biswa of land from Maghar Ram etc on 3.10.1994 and, therefore, at the most they have stepped into the shoes of Maghar Ram etc and have nothing to do with the shares of the answering defendant-respondents. If at all they are aggrieved, they can seek the relief against said Maghar Ram only, which was made clear by learned Collector, Dhuri vide its order dated 7.11.1996 also. It was further submitted that filing of the present suit after a period of 14 years is unnecessarily driving the defendants-respondents to the avoidable litigation and the plaintiffs-petitioners have deliberately not disclosed the filing of civil writ petition No.12029 of 2008 in this Court and its dismissal as withdrawn vide order dated 16.7.2008. Lastly, it was submitted that jurisdiction of civil court is barred under Section 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC was filed for grant of interim injunction. Upon notice, defendants- respondent Nos.1 & 2 filed reply to the application controverting the assertion of the plaintiff-petitioners similar to the stand taken in the main suit. After hearing both the parties, stay application was dismissed vide order dated 3.12.2008 (P.6) by the learned trial Court while observing that the same shall not affect the merit of the case. Aggrieved against the order C.R No.6518 of 2010 #3# dated 3.12.2008, an appeal was preferred and the same was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur vide judgment dated 17.8.2010 (P.8). In these circumstances, the present petition by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed. Notice of motion was issued to the respondents. Except respondent Nos.1 & 2 the service of rest of the respondents was dispensed with by this Court vide order dated 12.1.2011 for their having been proceeded ex parte before the learned trial Court. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiffs-petitioners and respondent Nos.1 & 2 and perused the paper book. It is argued by learned counsel for the plaintiffs-petitioners that both the courts below have misread and misconstrued the material available on record while dismissing the injunction application and the same is based on surmises and conjectures. It is submitted that by way of sale certificate dated 8.1.1990 (P.1), learned Executing Court has sold Khasra No.188 and 334 to one Inderjit Singh and he (Inderjit Singh) further sold half share of Khasra No.334 to the petitioners vide registered sale deed dated 26.2.1991. It is further submitted that defendants-respondent Nos.3 to 9 have sold the land measuring 12 Bigha 10 Biswa of land from Khasra No.347 and 348 and possession of the same was given to the plaintiffs-petitioners and they are in possession of the same. It is further submitted that the possession of the plaintiffs-petitioners has been upheld by way of judgment and decree dated 18.10.2000 (P.2) in an earlier round of litigation. It is also submitted that even the correction of Khasra Girdawari in favour of the plaintiffs- petitioners was upheld by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 1.4.2009 (P.7) and this Court has also granted liberty to the petitioners vide C.R No.6518 of 2010 #4# order dated 16.7.2008 (P.3) to avail the alternative remedy. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has defended that orders passed by both the courts below and submitted that the same are perfectly in accordance with law and do not require any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. A perusal of Sale Certificate dated 8.1.1990 (P.1) reveals that one Inderjit Singh purchased ½ share of Maghar Ram of the land measuring 14 bigha 8 biswa comprised in khata No.23/47 Khasra No.188/8-10, 334/5- 18 situated in the revenue estate of Village Mallu Majra as per jamabandi for the year 1979-80 for a sum of Rs.30000/- by way of public auction held on 26.5.1989 in execution of the civil court decree. Undisputedly, the plaintiffs-petitioners have purchased the land in dispute from the co-sharer of the defendants-respondents in a joint land. This is also not in dispute that the partition proceedings have already become final and are only to be implemented. This is also not in dispute that the co-sharer from whom the plaintiffs-petitioners have purchased the land were parties in the partition proceedings. This is also not in dispute that the plaintiffs-petitioners filed CWP No.12029 against the order dated 17.10.2007 passed by Financial Commissioner, Punjab and the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.7.2008 (P.3). This is also not in dispute that ROR No.526 was dismissed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 1.3.1994 and the same has become final between the parties and merely because the plaintiffs-petitioners have purchased the land on 3.10.1994 allegedly mentioning specific khasra Number from a co-sharer will not entitle them to seek the interim injunction as they have stepped into the shoes of their vendors. For the last 16 years, the order dated 1.3.1994 C.R No.6518 of 2010 #5# vide which the partition proceedings were finalized could not be implemented and conclusion of the courts below that the plaintiffs- petitioners are trying to thwart the warrant of possession issued by the revenue authorities on one pretext or the other is perfectly justified and the discretion exercised by both the courts below is based on well settled principles of law i.e (i) prima facie case (ii) balance of convenience; and (iii) irreparable loss for deciding an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, this court does not find any perversity or illegality to interfere in the impugned order while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. January 17, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE