Illa Lumba v. Asha Bansal & Ors.

Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh

1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate for the respondents. ... Alok Singh, J.(Oral) Plaintiff - petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad dated 8.3.2010, whereby part of the ad interim injunction application moved by the plaintiff qua the land measuring 204/5/2, 204/4, 204/15 was dismissed. In nutshell, plaintiff has filed suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants qua the land measuring 28 kanals 19 marlas, detailed and described in the plaint. Along with the plaint, CR No. 2009 of 2010 2 application seeking ad interim injunction was also moved. The case taken by the plaintiff is that she had purchased the land from the previous owner namely Sheetal Khanna vide sale deed dated 16.3.2004. Sheetal Khanna had earlier purchased the property from its previous owner, namely, Rupesh Monga vide sale-deed dated 13.5.1999; having purchased the land from Sheetal Khanna, plaintiff’s named and possession was duly recorded in the revenue records by the order of the revenue authorities. It is further averred that defendants want to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff, hence, cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff to file suit for permanent prohibitory injunction. Defendants have filed their reply and have contented that the land measuring 16 kanals 19 marlas comprising in Rectangle No.204, Kila No.5/2 and 6/15 was earlier owned and possessed by Rupesh Monga and he had leased out the above-mentioned land to the defendants by virtue of registered sale deed dated 7.5.1997 and the defendants are in possession as owner pursuant to the registered lease deed dated 7.5.1997 and plaintiffs have no right or title over the property purchased by the defendants vide registered lease deed dated 7.5.1997. The trial Court has rejected the ad interim injunction application vide order dated 24.9.2009. However, the Appellate Court allowed the application of the plaintiff - petitioner herein beyond the land measuring 16 kanals 19 marlas comprising in Rectangle No.204, allegedly purchased by defendants vide lease deed dated 7.5.1997. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has approached this Court challenging the order of the Appellate Court whereby her ad interim injunction application was dismissed pertaining to land measuring 16 kanals 19 marlas, comprising in Rectangle CR No. 2009 of 2010 3 No.204, allegedly purchased by defendants vide lease deed dated 7.5.1997. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Plaintiff is claiming title over the entire property in dispute pursuant to the sale deed dated 16.3.2004, while defendants herein are claiming title over the land measuring 16 kanals 19 marlas, pursuant to registered lease deed dated 7.5.1997. In the present case, plaintiff is claiming his title and possession, while defendants are claiming their title and possession over the property in dispute. However, the fact remains that the revenue entries are in favour of the plaintiff and have not been disturbed so far. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly stated that defendants have filed suit for cancellation of the sale deed against the plaintiff pertaining to the land measuring 16 kanals 19 marlas having been purchased by the defendants through lease deed dated 7.5.1997. The basic principle of grant of ad interim injunction is that the plaintiff has to show prima-facie case and balance of convenience and that irreparable loss would be caused to him, if no interim protection is granted. In the opinion of this Court, prima–facie case means where plaintiff has some rights involved in the case to be adjudicated by the Court. In the present case, since both the parties are claiming their respective title and possession over the suit property, hence, prima-facie case is in favour of the plaintiff. Another reason for prima-facie case is that the revenue entries pertaining to the ownership and possession of the land in question, is in favour of the plaintiff. If during the pendency of the case, no interim protection is granted, then the parties can take law in their hands to disturb CR No. 2009 of 2010 4 the possession over the property in dispute, hence in the opinion of this Court, balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case where both the parties are claiming their respective possession and title over the property in dispute, what proper interim injunction is to be passed ? The Apex Court in the matter of_Maharwal Khewaji Trust Vs. Baldev Dass, reported in 2004(8) SCC 488, in paragraph 10 has held as under:- “Be that as it may, Mr. Sachhar is right in contending that unless and until a case of irreparable loss or damage is made out by a party to the suit, the court should not permit the nature of the property being changed which also includes alienation or transfer of the property which may lead to loss or damage being caused to the party who may ultimately succeed and may further lead to multiplicity of proceedings. In the instant case no such case of irreparable loss is made out except contending that the legal proceedings are likely to take a long time, therefore, the respondent should be permitted to put the scheduled property to better use.” In the opinion of this Court, when the parties are claiming their respective title and possession over the property in dispute, the best course would be to maintain the status quo, qua the nature and possession of the property so that meanwhile possession and nature of the property should remain intact. Present petition is allowed. Parties are directed to maintain status quo qua possession and nature of the property in question during the pendency of the suit. The trial Court is expected to decide the suit on its CR No. 2009 of 2010 5 own merits without being prejudice to any observations made in the impugned order and in the present order passed by this Court.

09.11.2010 sk. ( Alok Singh ) Judge