Civil Revision No. 7094 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7094 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.02.2010 Raunki Ram and another ....Petitioners Versus Sh. Surjit Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. G.S. Jagpal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Vijay Rana, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 6. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) The petitioners, by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, have challenged the order dated 11.10.2008, passed by the learned Courts below, dismissing an application filed under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in a pending suit. The case set up by the plaintiff/petitioners was, that a committee was constituted by the members of the Scheduled Castes community, to provide accommodation facilities to the Scheduled Castes members for ceremonial functions, such as marriages and other community gatherings etc. The District Welfare Officer was nominated as Chairman of the Committee and Tehsil Welfare Officer as member. Plaintiff/petitioner No.1 being ex-Panch belonging to Scheduled Caste was also inducted as a member, the other plaintiff/petitioner was the Cashier. Dharamshala was constructed by the Committee with the funds Civil Revision No. 7094 of 2008 (O&M) -2- provided by the Government and by the donations. Dharamshala was to be used by the Scheduled Castes community for celebrating their functions. Dharamshala was not property of any individual, nor any individual had any right, title or interest in the property. It was the case of the plaintiff/petitioners, that the defendants had no right, title or interest in the property but were making efforts to illegally encroach the property and thereby cause hindrance in the management and affairs of the Dharamshala. The defendants were also trying to take forcible possession of the Dharamshala, therefore, the suit for injunction was the only remedy available in this situation. Defendants No.1 to 6 contested the suit by asserting, that the Dharamshala was not exclusively for Scheduled Castes nor there existed any such Committee as alleged by the plaintiff/petitioners. The stand of defendants No.1 to 6 was, that the suit was filed in connivance with defendant No.7 to create party faction in the village. The property was Panchayat Ghar, constructed in khewat No. 163, khasra No.50 in the village by the Gram Panchayat by spending Panchayat funds. The funds were provided by Bikramjit Singh Ahluwalia, therefore, the Janj Ghar was named as “Bibi Shanti Devi Barat Ghar”. More that Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lac only) were spent on the construction of the “Panchayat Ghar” by Bikramjit Singh Ahluwaila by his construction company. The case of the defendant/respondent was, that the janj ghar was to be used by all the villagers irrespective of their caste. The management was under the Gram Panchayat. The learned trial Court on consideration of respective Civil Revision No. 7094 of 2008 (O&M) -3- contentions declined injunction keeping in view the fact, that it was not disputed that alleged Dharamshala was in the name of Bibi Shanti Devi, and constructed by Sh. Bikramjit Singh Ahluwalia. The learned trial Court also held, that in the jamabandi for the year 2002-03, the ownership of the property in dispute was shown as Panchayat Deh, and there was no document showing that Dharamshala was only for the use of Scheduled Castes community. The learned trial Court, therefore, held that no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff/petitioners made out nor they were likely to suffer irreparable loss or injury, in case, injunction was not granted. In appeal, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court stand affirmed. The learned appellate Court held, that the documents relied upon by the plaintiff/petitioners with regard to release of funds, were not connected to the property in dispute. The learned counsel for the petitioners challenged the judgment passed by the learned Courts below on the plea, that the documents placed on record were ignored by the learned Courts while declining the prayer for injunction. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was, that the funds were provided by the State Government for Scheduled Castes Dharamshala and the learned Courts below committed and error in dismissing the application, by ignoring this important fact. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned Courts below in view of the document placed on record and admitted position came to prima facie conclusion that no prima facie case in favour of the Civil Revision No. 7094 of 2008 (O&M) -4- petitioners was made out. The positive stand taken by defendant/respondents No.1 and 6, that Janj Ghar was for use of everybody irrespective of caste, showed that no irreparable loss was likely to be caused to the petitioners, in case injunction was not granted. The petitioners, therefore, failed to prove prima facie case, balance of convenience as also that any irreparable loss was likely to be caused to the plaintiff/petitioners on account of refusal of injunction. No fault can be found with the findings recorded by the learned Courts below, to call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge February 10, 2010 R.S.