CR No. 8145 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 8145 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 28.03.2011 Rajbir and another ....Petitioner Vs. M/s S.S. Company and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL ****** Present:- Mr. Tribhuvan Dahiya, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 3 to 7. Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 6 and 7. A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL) This petition assails the order dated 03.12.2010 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned District Judge, Sonepat and the order dated 04.09.2010 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonepat, dismissing the application for interim injunction filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioners') in a suit for permanent injunction. The factual background of the case is that the petitioners had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants-respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondents') on the grounds inter alia, that the petitioners and respondent Nos. 2 to 7 are the co-sharers in joint possession of the suit land. Respondent No.1 without seeking consent or permission from the petitioners, in collusion with respondent Nos. CR No. 8145 of 2010 (O&M) 2 2 to 7, is threatening to excavate sand/earth out of the suit land belonging to respondent Nos. 2 to 7, forcibly and illegally up to the depth of 60 to 70 feet. This will permanently change the nature of the land. Thus, the petitioners, while claiming the relief of permanent injunction, also sought ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents from excavating the sand/earth from the suit land, which is in joint possession of the parties. Alongwith the suit, an application for grant of interim injunction was also filed. In the reply, the respondent No.1 submitted that it is a company running the business of mining. The Respondent Nos. 2 to 3 are co-sharers in the suit property and in exclusive possession over the land (which is under excavation). They also made a reference to the agreement dated 27.10.2008 allegedly entered into by the petitioner No.1 with it with regard to leasing of the land for mining operation and also another agreement dated 09.01.2009 entered into by petitioner No.2, which was executed only for stocking of the sand in the said land. It was further urged that the petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands. The suit has been filed in order to harass and humiliate the respondent No.1, who is doing mining operations after entering into contract agreement in respect of the minor minerals, sand quarry of District Sonepat, as a whole, as one unit and have invested a huge amount and paid a sum of ` 2.08,37,500/- to the Government of Haryana as first advance monthly installment/contract money and also paid security of ` 6,25,12,500/-. It is further alleged that respondent No.1 M/s CR No. 8145 of 2010 (O&M) 3 S.S. Company has been assigned the contract by the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 for the period with effect from 24.09.2009 to 31.03.2014 to excavate the sand and respondent No.1 has also taken the land of the petitioner No.1 on lease for excavation vide separate agreement and this agreement is also valid from 10.10.2008 to 31.03.2014. Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 also do not dispute with regard to the lease agreement as entered into by them with respondent No.1. Both the Courts below declined to grant injunction in favour of the petitioners. Arguments heard. There is no denying the fact that the petitioners are co-sharers in the suit land. The petitioners are not in possession of the land regarding which, they are seeking injunction. The petitioners being in possession of the area of their share, have already leased out the land for excavation purposes. Respondent No.1 has placed on record copy of the lease deed dated 26.11.2007, which proves that Dariyao Singh and Rajbir Singh, petitioners and others handed over their land in the year 1992 for excavation of the sand to Rajinder Kumar and Company and the said land was leased out to M/s S.R.S. & Company for excavating the land from September 2003 to 06.03.2005 up to the water level with the help of machine as earlier the sand was excavated only by manual process. Further, the agreement dated 27.10.2008 proves that Rajbir and others had given 78 Kanals of land, in their possession, to respondent No.1 Company for excavating the sand. Thus, the petitioners, by their own act and conduct, having already leased out the land for excavating purposes, cannot stop the other co-sharers from a similar use. The trial Courts have CR No. 8145 of 2010 (O&M) 4 rightly relied upon the judgment of Hussan Lal Vs. Krishna Devi, 1996 (3) Latest Judicial Reports 823, where a co-sharer was declined injunction, who himself having raised construction over the disputed property without partition, sought to stop the other co-sharer from raising construction. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case Narendra Kante Vs. Anuradha Kante and others, 2010 (2) Latest Judicial Reports 20, observed that the Court has to consider the conduct of the parties also apart from prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. The person who allowed the another to deal with the property exclusively and had kept quiet for a long time is not entitled for an order of injunction. The Full Bench of our own High Court in a case M/s Ram Gopal Banars Dass Vs. Satish Kumar, 1985 PLJ 591, had not granted injunction where the defendant himself had acquiesced in the running of the business of premises, for which, it was let out or being carried on from very inception of transaction. Similarly, in case Jagir Singh Vs. Harbans Singh, 2001(1) Latest Judicial Reports 225, it was observed that the person who seeks equity must do equity. Thus, in these circumstances, the petitioners who leased out the property for excavating purpose, cannot restrain their co-sharers from a similar use, who are in exclusive possession of the same. Faced with the situation, the counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had filed a suit against the respondents, restraining them from excavating or changing the nature of the land, therefore, the Court should not have gone beyond that to grant any relief to the respondents. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the CR No. 8145 of 2010 (O&M) 5 Appellate Court has exceeded its powers. The petitioner did not seek any relief for restraining the respondents from taking sand from the land in dispute, therefore, the appellate Court should not have passed any order qua such relief. Anyway, it is settled by now that the Court while deciding the application for grant of injunction, should not have gone beyond the claim as set up by the parties before it. As such, no injunction could be granted in favour of the respondents in the absence of any prayer made by them. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. (A.N.JINDAL) 28th of March, 2011 JUDGE ajp