Civil Revision No.2289 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2289 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision:04.04.2011 Rajinder Singh and another ......Petitioners Versus Gurdial Kaur and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Ramandeep Singh Pandher, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The conspectus of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present revision petition and emanating from the record, is that Rajinder Singh and Tarlochan Singh, sons of Sham Singh, petitioners-plaintiffs(hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiffs”) filed the suit for a decree of mandatory injunction, directing Gurdial Kaur and others-respondents- defendants (hereinafter to be referred as “the defendants”) to plant the popular/Safeda trees in their land in dispute, after leaving an area of 10 feet from the common boundary(embankment/butt), inter alia, on the ground of causing damage to the crops in their(plaintiffs) adjoining fields. They have also filed an application for ad interim injunction, invoking the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, on the same lines of pleadings, as contained in the plaint. 2. The defendants contested the suit and filed the written statement and reply to the stay application, inter alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the suit, estoppel, cause of action and locus standi of the Civil Revision No.2289 of 2011 2 plaintiffs. They have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit as well as the stay application. 3. The trial Court accepted the application for ad interim injunction filed by the plaintiffs and restrained the defendants from planting the trees of any kind within the area of 10 feet from the common embankment/butt, by way of order dated 26.04.2010(Annexure P-2). 4. Aggrieved by the order(Annexure P-2), the defendants filed the appeal, which was accepted by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court( for short “the Appellate Court”) by virtue of impugned order dated 07.02.2011 (Annexure P-1). 5. The plaintiffs did not feel satisfied with the impugned order (Annexure P-1) and filed the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition. 7. What is not disputed here is that the defendants are absolute owners and in possession of their land in dispute. The plaintiffs sought temporary injunction to restrain them(defendants) from planting the trees within the area of 10 feet from the common embankment/butt. Once, it is not a matter of dispute that the defendants are owners and in possession, in that eventuality, they have every legal right to enjoy and use their property in the manner, they like and no restrictions whatsoever can be imposed upon them in this regard. If such temporary injunctions are granted in a suit for decree of mandatory injunction in a routine fashion, then to me, no legitimate owners can use or cultivate their land in the manner, they like and there will be no end of the things. A true owner has every legal right to plant and grow any crops including the popular plants(crop) to earn his livelihood in this context. Civil Revision No.2289 of 2011 3 8. As is evident from the record that the trial Court fell in legal error in accepting the stay application of the plaintiffs. The error committed by the trial Court was corrected by the Appellate Court, by means of impugned order dated 07.02.2011(Annexure P-1). The operative part of which is, as under:- “I have considered the submissions of both the sides and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiffs and the defendants are owners in possession of their separate land. They have no concern with the property of each others. Defendants are owners in possession of the land in question regarding which they have been restrained from planting any kind of tree adjoining the land of the plaintiffs. It is well settled law that temporary mandatory injunction can be issued only for rare cases where they are compelling circumstances or where there are complained of immediate or pressing or likely to cause extreme hardship. In the present case, neither there is any compelling circumstance, nor there is any extreme hardship for grant of temporary mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. There is only apprehension in the mind of the plaintiffs that they will suffer loss if the defendants plant trees in the land adjoining the land of the plaintiffs. Merely on the ground of apprehension, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any grant of temporary mandatory injunction. The plaintiffs have no right to dictate the terms to the defendants for using the land by them. Since, they are owner in possession of the land as such they have every right to use the same as per their own desires. Merely on the ground that the Gram Panchayat passed resolution directing every land owner of the village to plant trees in their land after leaving 10 feet area from the common butt of other owners, is no ground for grant of temporary mandatory injunction, unless or until it is proved that by planting the trees adjoining the land of others, he/they will suffer extreme hardship and will also suffer an irreparable loss which cannot be compensation in terms of money. In view of my above discussion, it is held that the trial Court has erred in passing the impugned order which definitely calls for interference. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the lower court is set aside. Appeal stands allowed.” 9. Meaning thereby, the Appellate Court has recorded the valid reasons in this relevant connection. Such order, containing the valid reasons, cannot Civil Revision No.2289 of 2011 4 legally be interfered with, in exercise of power of superintendence of this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, so, the impugned order (Annexure P-1) deserves to be and is hereby maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 10. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the main suit, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such. April 04, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE