C.R.No.3201 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.3201 of 2009 Date of decision: 26.5.2010 Chajju .....Petitioner vs. Haryana State Industrial Corporation and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: None for the petitioner. Mr.Hemant Bassi,Advocate, for the respondents. -- Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) This is plaintiff's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 15.1.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jind, whereby appeal filed by the defendant-respondents has been accepted and order dated 27.1.2008 passed by the trial Court granting ad interim injunction in his favour was set aside and the application for ad interim injunction was dismissed. As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioner is the owner in possession of the suit land comprised in khata No.195/298, khasra No.376/11, 12 and the remaining land comprised in the aforesaid khata was acquired by the State Government. It has been further averred that there was a passage comprised in khasra No.2085 upto the land of the plaintiff. Now, there was no passage left for the remaining land of the plaintiff and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to have a passage on the basis of easement of necessity. It was further pleaded that the defendants be directed C.R.No.3201 of 2009 2 to carve out a passage as detailed in the head-note of the plaint, but the defendants are bent upon to raise construction in the aforesaid passage, hence the present suit. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order XXXIX rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for grant of ad interim injunction. Defendant-respondents contested the suit as well as prayer for grant of ad interim injunction, asserting that the suit land stands acquired and even the plaintiff-petitioner has got compensation for the same and, therefore, he has no right to have a passage in the aforesaid acquired land. The trial Court vide order dated 10.10.2007 allowed the application and granted ad interim injunction restraining the defendant- respondents from raising any construction in the passage as detailed in the head- note till the final decision of the suit. On appeal, the lower Appellate Court vide impugned order while accepting the appeal and setting aside the order granting ad interim injunction to the petitioner observed that there is no evidence to show that there exists a passage at the spot. Moreover, the plaintiff was not entitled to the discretionary relief as he concealed the material facts from the Court to the effect that his sons had already filed a similar suit seeking the same relief and their application for ad interim injunction stood dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Jind, vide order dated 15.1.2009. No one is present on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner to assist the Court. I have perused the impugned order. It is not in dispute that the suit land has been acquired and the petitioner has already got the compensation for the same. It is well settled law that the order on the C.R.No.3201 of 2009 3 application for temporary injunction is of a discretionary character. The interference with the discretionary order, however, may be justified, if the lower Court acts arbitrarily or perversely, capriciously or in disregard of sound legal principles or without considering all the relevant records. In the present case, I find no justification to interfere in the impugned order. Thus, I find no merit in this revision petition. Dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge May 26, 2010 rk