Civil Revision No.9/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.9/2011 Date of decision:4.1.2011 Arjan Singh and others .............Petitioners v Ajit Singh and others ..............Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr.Ramesh Sharma,Advocate for the petitioners. Jaswant Singh,J. Defendants-petitioners have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India laying challenge to the order dated 13.10.2010 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)Sultanpur Lodhi, whereby their application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint was dismissed. Briefly noticed, the plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction against defendants-petitioners for restraining them from discharging the dirty and rainy water of their land/making any water pond/chhapar over the land in dispute comprised in khewat no.165, khatoni no.289 bearing khasra no.57 as per Jamabandi for the Civil Revision No.9/2011 2 year 2006-07 situated in Village Aminpur,Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi. Petitioners-defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC stating therein that the suit land was recorded as ownership of Jumla Malkan under the management and control of Gram Panchayat. It was further averred that respondents-plaintiffs were claiming ownership over the suit land and as per provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act (for short the Act), such matters can only be decided by Collector, Panchayat Lands and hence jurisdiction of Civil Courts is barred under Section 13 of the Act. It was accordingly prayed that the plaint be rejected. Respondents /plaintiffs filed reply to the said application stating therein that no question of ownership or nature of the suit land was involved in the suit for permanent injunction and the only prayer made was to restrain the petitioners/defendants from interfering in their possession by way of discharge of rainy/dirty water in the suit land. The learned trial Court, after hearing both sides found that plaintiffs were only claiming injunction against illegal interference of petitioners/defendants, who are private persons and no relief was sought against the gram panchayat. It was further noticed by the learned trial Court that no question of title was involved and thus the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendants was misconceived. With these observations the application filed by the defendants was dismissed. Civil Revision No.9/2011 3 During the course of hearing learned counsel for the defendants/ petitioners has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Merely because the plaintiffs claim themselves to be in actual possession of the suit land being owners and proprietors of the village would not mean that Section 13 of the Act would come into play thus barring the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. Since no question of ownership or nature of the suit land is involved in the suit for permanent injunction and the only prayer made is to restrain the petitioners/defendants from interfering in their possession by way of discharge of rainy/dirty water in the suit land, the impugned order suffers from no illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. 4.1.2011. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge