C.R. No.521 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.521 of 2009 Date of decision:- 29.01.2009. Amrik Kaur and another ...Petitioners. Versus Charanjit Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. JASWANT SINGH J. The petitioners-plaintiffs have filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 13.06.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar and order dated 10.01.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide which their application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for interim injunction has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the learned first Appellate Court. The facts giving rise to the present matter in controversy are as under:- That one Darshan Singh, was the owner of the suit property and he died in the year 1977 leaving behind two sons and three daughters namely:- 1. Ravel Singh son-respondent No.2-defendant 2. Gurmej Singh son (deceased) represented by Charanjit Kaur- respondent No.2-Defendant No.1. 3. Amrik Kaur daughter -petitioner No.1-Plaintiff 4. Manjit Kaur daughter-petitioner No.2-Plaintiff 5. Gurmit Kaur daughter-respondent No.3-Defendant. It is necessary to mention here that respondent-defendant No.3 has C.R. No.521 of 2009 -2- already been proceeded ex-parte before the learned Trial Court and none has appeared on her behalf before the learned first Appellate Court also. To be precise this is a dispute between sisters and brothers. Civil suit No.621 of 2006 dated 10.06.2006 was filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners for declaration to the effect that they are co-sharers/co-owners to the extent of 20 Kanal 19 Marla being 2/5 share out of total land measuring 52 Kanal 8 Marla described in head-note of the plaint and two houses shown in the site plan attached herewith for joint possession of the above land and houses; with a further consequential relief of restraining the defendants No.1 and 2 from alienating the suit property in any manner. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also filed for seeking interim injunction. Both the Courts below have exercised their discretion and came to the conclusion that plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands and hence, they are not entitled for any discretionary relief. Further on the ground that no injunction can be granted against the true owner as the defendants No.1 and 2, prima facie as per jamabandi for the year 1993-94, have been recorded as owners-in-possession of the suit land as per their respective shares and therefore, balance of convenience lies in favour of the defendants and not in favour of the plaintiffs and no irreperable loss and injury would be caused if interim injunction is not granted. Admittedly, Darshan Singh was the owner of the suit property and he died in the year 1977. The case, which is projected by the plaintiffs-petitioners, is that they are the owners of the suit property to the extent of 2/5 share being the legal heirs of late Shri Darshan Singh and till one year back from the date of filing of the civil suit, defendants No.1 and 2 used to pay the occupation charges in respect of the suit land to them, but now they have stopped and refused to do so. It is further alleged that when they are the legal heirs, then prima facie case is made out in their favour. The respondents-defendants No.1 and 2 have relied upon the Will dated 12.02.1976 executed by late Shri Darshan Singh in their favour and on C.R. No.521 of 2009 -3- the basis of that, the mutation No.1824 has been sanctioned in their favour and the mutation is incorporated in the subsequent jamabandi and the defendants have produced the jamabandi for the year 1993-94 in which Ravel Singh and Charanjit Kaur are owners of the suit property to the extent of ½ share each. It is necessary to mention here that Charanjit Kaur is the widow of Gurmej Singh and now wife of Ravel Singh. Law is well settled that for grant of relief of interim injunction three things are necessary to be kept in mind; prima facie case; balance of convenience and irreperable loss and injury. Admittedly, in the present case as per the revenue record, defendants No.1 and 2 are shown to be owners in possession of the suit land to the extent of ½ share each and therefore, prima facie case in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 is made out and not in favour of the plaintiffs. Once it is evident that they are in possession, then obviously balance of convenience also goes in their favour (defendants No.1 and 2) and in case the interim injunction is not granted in favour of the plaintiffs then no irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiffs, rather the defendants, who are in possession will suffer an irreparable loss in case the interim injunction is granted in favour of plaintiffs. At this stage, for deciding the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, the revenue record i.e. jamabandi for the year 1993-94 is a material document as presumption of truth is attached therewith being a public document. Further it has come on record and discussed by both the Courts below that defendant No.3 Gurmit Kaur, who is one of the daughter of late Shri Darshan Singh, also filed a civil suit titled as 'Gurmit Kaur Vs. Gurmej Singh' and which was pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar and the defendants therein filed the written statement and they did not raise any objection qua the sanctioning of the mutation in favour of Ravel Singh and Charanjit Kaur. The present suit is filed by the plaintiffs in the year 2006 and they kept concealed the fact of the pendency of the aforesaid suit, filed by Gurmit Kaur, about which they are well aware and they have deliberately concealed this fact. C.R. No.521 of 2009 -4- The grant of temporary injunction is a discretionary relief under Section 37 of the Specific Relief Act and for seeking this discretionary relief, the law is well settled that the parties should come to the court with clean hands and whosoever approached the Court with uncleaned hands, is not entitled to the discretionary relief. On this ground also, both the Courts below rightly exercised their jurisdiction while dismissing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As discussed herein above, neither any prima facie case is made out in favour of the plaintiffs nor any balance of convenience lies in their favour and they will not suffer any irreparable loss and injury if the injunction is not granted in their favour. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed above, there is no ground made out to interfere into the discretion exercised by both the Courts below while entertaining the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No merits. Dismissed. January 29, 2009 (JASWANT SINGH) vj JUDGE