Civil Revision No. 344 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 344 of 2011 Date of Decision: 13.7.2011 *** Charanjit Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Malook Singh & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Paramjit Rajput, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 4. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The land of the petitioner is adjacent to the land of respondents No.1 to 3, who have given the same on lease to respondent No.4, a brick kiln owner. Alleging that respondent No.4 is digging earth therefrom to the level of 10fts., thereby causing damage to his land by erosion of soil, he filed the suit for injunction restraining respondent No.4 from digging the earth. Along with the suit an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 for grant of interim injunction was filed. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties, vide order dated 13.8.2010, directed respondent No.4 to dig the earth after leaving 10 ft. area from the boundary of the fields of the plaintiff. However, on an appeal preferred by the respondents, the learned appellate Court below modified the order and reduced the restricted area to 3 fts. From 10 fts, necessitating the plaintiff to file the instant revision petition. Heard. The factual aspect of the matter is not in dispute. The ownership of plaintiff and that of respondents No.1 to 3 of their respective fields, adjoining to each other as also giving of land of latter on lease to respondent No.4 is not in dispute. The grouse of the petitioner is that the area of 3 fts., as ordered by the appellate Court below, is not going to serve Civil Revision No. 344 of 2011 2 the purpose and obviously will result into damage to the crops and fields of the petitioner. It has come on record that the agreement to dig out the earth between respondents No.1 to 3 and respondent No.4 was up to the level of 5 ft. down only. The learned appellate Court below, as noticed above, has directed respondent No.4 to leave a gap of 3 fts. Between fields of plaintiff and respondents No.1 and 3 and then to start the excavation work, meaning thereby the fields of the plaintiff would get a strong support of 3 ft. wide piece of land, thereby minimizing the risk to the fields of the plaintiff, during the pendency of the suit. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The revision petition, being without merit, is accordingly dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE July 13, 2011 Jiten