Point of Law: Relief which cannot be granted in main suit, can also not be granted by way of interim relief.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

Petitioners herein are plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 33 of 2014 pending before the learned Civil Judge, Sunder Nagar, wherein plaintiffs have claimed relief against the defendants/respondents herein to restrain them by way of permanent prohibitory injunction from causing any interference in the suit land by illegal threats to dispossess the plaintiffs. In alternative a decree for mandatory injunction have also been claimed. Plaintiffs also filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking interim injunction against the defendants in the same terms as prayer made in the suit.

2. The plaintiffs claimed themselves to be in settled possession of suit land since 1965-66. As per the averments made in the plaint, the suit land was sold to them/their predecessors-in-interest by way of oral sale by the predecessors-in-interest of defendants No. 4 to 11, in the year 1951-52. Besides vacant land, plaintiffs have also claimed possession over certain structures on the suit land. Plaintiffs have placed reliance on report submitted by a revenue official in pursuance to an application filed by the plaintiffs in the year 2014. On the strength of such report, plaintiffs have tried to impress upon the Court that they were in settled possession of the suit property. It is the case of parties that defendants No.4 to 11 have sold suit land to defendants No.1 to 3 by way of registered sale deed and mutation of such transaction also stood attested.

3. Defendants are contesting the suit and have denied the averments made in the plaint in totality. The possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land has specifically been denied.

4. On the application of plaintiffs for interim injunction, learned trial Court passed an order dated 11.07.2016 and directed the parties to the suit to maintain status quo qua nature and possession of the suit land till disposal of the main suit.

5. Defendants No.1 to 3 challenged the order passed by learned trial Court by filing an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellate Court has allowed the appeal of defendants No.1 to 3 and the order passed by learned trial Court has been set aside.

6. Plaintiffs are before this Court by way of instant petition with a challenge to order dated 24.05.2019 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, camp at Sundernagar, in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 12 of 2012.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.

8. Learned trial Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo qua nature and possession of the suit land after holding the existence of prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs on the basis of report dated 17.02.2014 submitted by a revenue officer and certain photographs placed on record.

9. Learned Appellate Court has set aside the order passed by learned trial Court by taking into consideration the facts, firstly that report dated 17.02.2014 of revenue officer had been issued without associating the defendants and hence could not be used against them; secondly that the presumption was attached to the revenue entries which supported the case of the defendants; thirdly that the plaintiffs had failed to place on record any document showing existence of any electricity or water connection having been installed in the suit land in the name of plaintiffs and lastly that the plaintiffs were not entitled for injunction in the absence of any challenge to the title of the defendants.

10. Admittedly, the possession of plaintiffs never came to be recorded in the revenue records. Plaintiffs have set up a plea of oral sale of the suit land in their favour, which has not been substantiated even prima facie on record. The absence of name of plaintiffs as possessors of the suit land since the alleged oral sale i.e. 1951-52, is totally unexplained.

11. Report dated 17.02.2014 of revenue officer, on the face of it suggests that the same was made on