The plaintiff must establish a prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favor to obtain an injunction.

JUDGMENT :

(Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.)

Both the learned Courts below have dismissed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC in short) moved by the plaintiff, giving cause of action to him to seek intervention of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Petitioner was the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court. He moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC for restraining the respondents-defendants from raising construction or changing the nature of the suit land comprised in Khata Khatauni Nos. 28/54, 28/55, 28/56 and Khasra Nos. 1978, 1979, 1980, 1982, 1984, 1986 and 1987, Kita 9, measuring 591-00 Sq. mtrs. situated at Mohal Pungh/26/7, Tehsil Sunderngar District Mandi, H.P.

Plaintiff’s case was that he was recorded as owner in possession of the suit land. Defendants (respondents herein) were co-owners over the adjoining land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1996 to 1998 measuring 482-00 sq. mtrs. situated in Mohal Pungh/26/7, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P.. Plaintiff claimed that in the old settlement record, area of suit land was depicted to be 27 karam i.e. 38 meters. However, during settlement operations held during the years 1967-1977, he was given 13 karam i.e. 19 meters on the road side front. Mutation Nos. 1843 and 1934 were accordingly entered and attested. Grievance of the plaintiff was that area of the plaintiff’s land had been wrongly reduced, whereas, area of the land of the defendants had been incorrectly increased by 10 meters more than the actual land purchased by them vide mutation No. 1635.

3. Defendants contested the application. Their stand was that neither they had any concern over the suit land nor were they interfering with the same. They pleaded that the plaintiff had covered the entire suit land by a boundary wall. There was another land parcel between the suit land and that of the defendants’ land. The said land parcel comprised in Khasra No.1988 measuring 68 mtrs. belongs to one Joginder Singh.

4. The learned Trial Court on consideration of the pleadings held that the basic ingredients governing grant of relief under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC were not met with in the case. Accordingly, the application was dismissed on 29.09.2022. This order has not been interfered with by learned Appellate Court. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed on 21.03.2023.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I am of the considered view that no case for interference with the impugned orders is made out. This is on the following count: -

The defendants have not claimed any right, title or interest over the land of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has asserted that dimension of his plots and that of the defendants have been wrongly altered in the settlement. According to the plaintiff, he had moved the competent authorities for correction of the entries. Both the learned Courts below have concurrently held that there is no allegation of the plaintiff about any construction being raised by the defendants over the land, which is in possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s allegations are that the defendants are trying to raise construction over the adjoining land and since the dimension of the plots of the plaintiff and that of the defendants have been wrongly altered and correction application in this regard is pending before the competent authority, therefore, the defendants be restrained from carrying out the construction. The defendants are owners of the land described above. Plaintiff has also admitted that there is land of third person, namely, Joginder Singh, in between the suit land and defendants’ land. It is not plaintiff’s case that he is in possession of the disputed area. Just because the plaintiff has taken steps for correction of revenue entries and is hopeful of obtaining some orders thereupon, cannot be the sole ground for restraining the defendants from enjoying their rights over their owned land. Plaintiff had