Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bharosilal vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 27 July, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(4)MPHT197
ORDER S.P. Srivastava, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Perused the record.
3. The plaintiff-applicant had filed a suit on 27-6-1990 claiming a decree declaring him to be the owner in possession of the property in dispute. He had also prayed for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the property in the suit.
4. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. was filed by the plaintiff praying for an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the ownership and possession over the property in dispute.
5. The trial Court vide its order dated 11-7-1991 came to the conclusion that the possession of the plaintiff was as that of a trespasser and on the strength of such an unauthorised possession he was not entitled to get any ad interim injunction, which if granted will result in protecting the unauthorised possession which is not permissible in law.
6. Against the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application, the plaintiff filed an appeal. The first Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had been in unauthorised possession as a trespasser over the property in dispute from the year 1975. The possession of the plaintiff over the property in dispute was found to be illegal and endorsing the view of the trial Court that no interim injunction could be granted to protect such a possession, the appeal was dismissed.
7. The only contention urged and pressed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff in support of this revision is that once the plaintiff was found to be in peaceful possession over the property in suit, his settled possession though found to be without title could be protected even against the true owner for a limited purpose, that is, till he was evicted in due course of law.
8. In the present case, it is urged that both the Courts below have recorded the concurrent finding which indicate that the plaintiff had been in settled possession of the property in dispute right from the year 1975.
9. In the aforesaid view of the matter, it is urged that the Courts below have acted with manifest illegality in not protecting the settled possession of the plaintiff by issuing the ad interim injunction with the limited extent providing that he could be evicted only by any lawful order or by due process of law.
10. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance in support of the aforesaid submission on the ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of Gajendra Singh v. Man Singh, rendered by a Division Bench reported in 2000(1) MPJR 465.
11. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has further placed reliance on another decision of a Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ramswarup Tripathi v. City Administrator, Gwalior, Office of Municipal Corporation, reported in AIR 1988 MP 264, wherein the defendants had been restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff till they were able to prove their own title over the land.
12. The learned counsel for the respondents have tried to support the impugned order on the reasonings contained therein.
13. The learned counsel representing the respondents No. 3 and 4 has pointed out that as indicated in Paragraph 12 of the written statement filed by them the matter in regard to the initiation of the proceedings regarding the permission and unauthorised encroachment against the plaintiff was pending. The written statement was filed on 19-4-1991.
14. Nothing has however been brought on record indicating the final order passed in the aforesaid proceedings. In their separate written statement filed by the defendants No. 1 and 2, the pleas of the same nature had been taken.
15. Considering the facts and circumstances as brought on record and the ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of Gajendra Singh (supra), sufficient ground has been made out for interference by this Court while exercising the revisory jurisdiction envisaged under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.
16. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this revision succeeds in part. The impugned orders are modified providing that the defendants shall stand restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the property in dispute, otherwise than in accordance with the law. For the rest of the relief, the application of the plaintiff shall stand rejected.
17. It may however be observed that the views expressed and the observations made in the impugned orders will be taken as only with reference to the stage of the proceedings and will not in any manner imply or mean reflections or comments on the merits of the case which shall be decided by the trial Court after considering the evidence led by the parties in the suit in support of their respective cases.
18. Ordered accordingly.