C.R. No.7411 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.7411 of 2010 Date of Decision: 15.11.2010. Jaswant Singh and others .....Petitioners Versus Jagwinder Singh and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr.Suresh Goel, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K. S. Hissowal, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5-plaintiffs-caveators. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Notice of motion. Mr. K. S. Hissowal, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5-plaintiffs-caveators. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 filed suit for permanent injunction against petitioners and proforma respondent No.6 wherein vide interim order dated 18.09.2010, the parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding the suit property. Patwari Halka was appointed as Local Commissioner to make report regarding disposal of water of the house of the plaintiffs in the pond comprising khasra No.1162/1 and also to report whether there is proper arrangement for disposal of the said water if the pond comprised in khasra Nos.1165, 1166, 1167 and 1168 is filled with earth. Local Commissioner made report mentioning that the disputed pond was filled with fresh earth and drain water of plaintiffs' houses was falling in khasra No.1162/1 C.R. No.7411 of 2010 -2- through private property. Plaintiffs moved application Annexure P-7 under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) alleging that the defendants filled the disputed pond with earth with mala fide intention during the pendency of the suit and diverted the direction of the water towards residential house of Karnail Singh by installing underground pipes. The plaintiffs accordingly prayed for interim mandatory injunction for removal of the fresh earth/soil from the disputed pond. Defendants resisted the aforesaid application by filing reply Annexure P-8. It was inter alia pleaded that village farmers, Commission agents and some NGOs collectively filled earth in the disputed pond in August, 2010 for extension of purchase centre for convenience of all concerned for stacking paddy in the purchase centre. The defendants denied having filled earth in the disputed pond during pendency of the suit. Levelling of earth work was done by the villagers and others, prior to filing of the suit. Learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 15.10.2010 Annexure P-9 allowed application Annexure P-7 filed by the plaintiffs and directed the defendants as well as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat to remove earth from the disputed pond within one month for proper disposal of the dirty water. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been preferred by defendant Nos.2 to 5 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. On oral prayer of counsel for the parties, the instant revision petition is taken up for final disposal today itself in view of the urgent nature of the issue involved. C.R. No.7411 of 2010 -3- I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted two-fold grievance of the petitioners. It was contended that the petitioners have not filled the earth in the disputed pond and, therefore, they cannot be directed to remove the same and the petitioners have no individual interest in the disputed pond. The second grievance is that the impugned order would mean that the defendants had disobeyed the interim status quo order of the trial Court which would invite punishment for the petitioners without adjudicating the said question. The aforesaid grievances of the petitioners can be redressed by directing the plaintiffs to remove the earth from the disputed pond, presently at their own expense and if ultimately it is found after recording evidence that the defendants had filled the said earth in violation of status quo order of the Court, then the said expenses may be recovered from the defendants. It has to be further ordered that any observation in the impugned order shall have no bearing on the question of alleged disobedience of the interim status quo order of the trial Court and the said question may be determined independently in accordance with law after recording evidence if and when any application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC is moved in the trial Court. It is ordered accordingly. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. Nothing observed hereinabove shall have any bearing on the merits of the suit. 15.11.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE