CR No. 3279 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 3279 of 2010 Date of decision:- 07.03.2011 Smt. Godawari and others ....Petitioners Vs. Kartar Singh ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL ****** Present:- Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the petitioners. None for the respondent. A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL) This petition assails the order dated 07.04.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Additional District Judge, Sonepat, dismissing the appeal of the defendants-petitioners (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioners') and confirming the order of grant of ad-interim injunction dated 02.09.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ganaur. The plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he has been in cultivating possession of the agricultural land measuring 5 Kanals 11 Marlas, as fully detailed in the heading of the plaint, situated within the revenue estate of village Bajana Kalan, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonepat, since long and he having attained occupancy rights under Section 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1897, has become owner of the suit property and the petitioner has left with no right, title or interest in the suit property. CR No. 3279 of 2010 2 Alongwith the suit, an application for grant of ad-interim injunction restraining the petitioner from dispossessing and alienating the suit property was also filed. In the reply, the petitioner submitted that the respondent is neither owner nor in possession of the suit property. Actually, Shri Ram and Chatru @ Chater Singh sons of Nanhu were the owners in possession over the suit land in equal shares, which was mortgaged to Shri Chand @ Shri Ram and Nihai Chand sons of Sarup Lal, and the same was later got redeemed by the mortgagor Chatru through his son Jaipal. It was further pleaded that the petitioners were in possession over the land in question in equal shares and they had leased out the same to Jaipal from May 2009 to May 2011. Upon hearing, the trial Court held the respondent to be prima facie in possession of the suit property and granted injunction regarding dispossession against the petitioner. The Appellate Court confirmed the order of injunction while granting injunction regarding alienation also. Heard, the copy of the Jamabandi for the year 2003- 04 pertaining to the suit land indicates the status of the respondent as 'Bai Sharat Padta Malkan Baiwajah Sabka Kabza'. The Khasra Girdawaries produced on the record also indicate the possession of the respondent over the suit property. To the contrary the petitioners, except claiming themselves to be owners over the suit property, have failed to show any document indicating their possession over the land, whereas the respondent is claiming his possession for more than 100 years having tagged his possession with his predecessors-in-interest. The respondent claims that he has acquired occupancy rights and become owner of the suit land. CR No. 3279 of 2010 3 In any case, the question of ownership is still to be decided at the time of adjudication of the suit, but the respondent has been successful in prima facie proving his possession over the suit land. As such, trial Court was justified in granting injunction in his favour. The other argument raised by the counsel for the petitioners is that though the trial Court had not granted any injunction qua alienation, but the Appellate Court has granted the said injunction without any cross-appeal having been filed by the respondent, therefore, the first Appellate Court has erred while granting the relief, which has not been awarded by the trial Court. The argument raised by the counsel for the petitioners appears to be unconvincing. Actually respondent had filed an application for grant of injunction against the petitioners restraining them from dispossessing the respondent as well as from alienating the suit land. Though the trial Court held all the three ingredients for grant of injunction, in favour of the respondent, yet it has omitted to mention regarding injunction with regard to alienation. As such, the Appellate Court in its powers under Order 31 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC'), appears to have granted injunction in favour of the respondent. Rule 33 read with Rule 4 of Order 41 CPC bestows the fullest powers to the Appellate Court to pass any order with a view to grant , mould or decline any relief in order to impart complete justice between the parties. The Court has ample power to pass such order as may be necessary to meet the ends of justice. By doing so, a party, who is not appellant, may be CR No. 3279 of 2010 4 benefited by the order irrespective of the fact if he has not challenged the correctness or not. Such relief could also be granted while exercising powers under Section 151 of the CPC. Thus, the relief which was not granted by the trial Court, was granted by the Appellate Court while exercising the powers under the aforesaid provisions. No other argument has been raised. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. (A.N.JINDAL) 07th of March, 2011 JUDGE ajp