Punjab and Haryana High Court Dismissed Revision Petition Challenging Dismissal of Interim Injunction Application
In a recent judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging the orders of the First Appellate Court and the Trial Court, which had dismissed an application for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The case, titled Om Parkash and Others vs. Gram Panchayat, Village Nahri and Others, involved a dispute over possession of a residential house.
The plaintiffs, in their suit, sought a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession of the residential house and from unlawfully dispossessing them. They claimed to be permanent residents of village Nahri, Tehsil and District Sonepat, asserting their ownership and possession of a residential house-cum-plot measuring 305 square yards within the Lal Dora of the village. According to their allegations, the defendants had threatened to demolish their house.
However, the Trial Court had dismissed their application for interim injunction, a decision that was later affirmed by the First Appellate Court. Dissatisfied with the rulings, the plaintiffs filed a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, seeking a review of the orders.
During the proceedings, the counsel for the plaintiffs argued that the plaintiffs had continuous possession of the property, emphasizing the need for an interim injunction.
The High Court, after considering the arguments, observed that there was a lack of prima facie evidence demonstrating the plaintiffs’ possession of the suit property. The Court further disregarded the reliance on photographs as proof of possession, asserting that photographs alone cannot establish possession. Notably, the Court also noted that the plaintiffs themselves had admitted to occupying another old house in the village, contradicting their claim of possession of the specific residential house mentioned in the plaint.
Additionally, the Court took note of the fact that the vacant land had been encroached upon, prompting the Gram Panchayat to take action by reporting the matter to the Deputy Commissioner. The Court acknowledged that the authorities had initiated measures to remove the unauthorized possession.
High Court held that the plaintiffs had failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, which are essential elements for the grant of interim injunction. In light of this, the revision petition was dismissed by the Court.
The case referred to Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which pertains to the grant of temporary injunctions in civil suits.
Date: 29th April 2023
Parkash and Others vs. Gram Panchayat
