CS 12 of 2005. 24.4.2008 Present: Mr. Kanchan Singh, Advocate, with Ms. Ruma Kaushik, counsel for the plaintiff. Mr. Vijay Pandit, with Ms. Yogita Dutta, counsel for the defendant. This suit has been preferred by the plaintiff on the averments as made in the plaint, praying for a decree in the nature of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant, his agent(s), attorney(s), successors, employees etc. from interfering in any manner with the peaceful and absolute enjoyment and possession of the suit premises/property by the plaintiff in respect of land measuring 4 (Four) Karnals 6 (six) Marlas shown in revenue records as falling within Khasra No. 1919/1612, Khata No. 115, Khatauni No. 277, as per jamabandi for the year 1987-88 and municipal Numbers 43,44, 45, situated at Jogibara Road, Upper Dharamshala, Mcleodganj, Distt. Kangra, Himachal Pradesh and further restraining the defendant, his agent/s, attorneys, employee/s, servant/s from creating any third party interest, encumbering and dealing with the suit property in any manner and interfering in the day to day affairs, function, occupation of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property and from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property forcibly, -2- unauthorisedly and without due process of law. My attention has been drawn to an order passed by this Court in OMP 86 of 2005 whereby an interim injunction has been issued in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant holding that: “Once prima facie it is found that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property, in my opinion, the plaintiff has got a prima facie case in her favour for the grant of ad interim injunction, especially when the plaintiff is found to be in established possession of the same since long. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff as the plaintiff is found to be in possession of the suit property. Furthermore, the plaintiff would certainly suffer irreparable loss and injury in case, the plaintiff is dispossessed from the said property forcibly by the defendant during the pendency of the suit. I am further of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to the grant of ad-interim injunction. In view of the above, the present application is allowed and the defendant/respondent is restrained from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over the suit property in any manner whatsoever and is also restrained from, dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property forcibly, unauthorisedly and without -3- any due process of law, during the pendency of the suit. The defendant is also restrained from creating any third party interest, encumbering and dealing with the suit property in any manner, duringt the pendency of the suit….” It is not disputed before me that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit premises and land. This fact is also admitted by the defendant. In view of this, the suit is disposed of on the admission of the defendant. It is trite to observe that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again reiterated the principles that no man shall be dispossessed from his occupation over the land/property except by due process of law. The suit is accordingly decreed and a decree for injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and it is ordered that the defendant shall not be dispossessed from the suit property/land except in accordance with law. It is clarified that this decree does not, in any manner, decide the question of title. All miscellaneous applications shall stand disposed of. Let a decree in terms as stated above be drawn up. There shall be no order as to costs. April 24, 2008(PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.