This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 17.7.2002 recorded by the learned Additional District Judge, Jammu in Civil Appeal titled as Union of India & Ors, v. Ram Nath. It is taken up for final disposal and adjudication with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. It appears that the plaintiff-respondent came to file a suit for permanent prohibitory injuction against the defendants-petitioners to the effect that defendant No. 1 and its subordinate officers-defendants No. 2 to 5 be permanently restrained to interfere with the land measuring about 89 kanals 2 marlas comprising of Survey No. 122-min, 131-min, 133-min, 101, 103, 111, 114, 115, 108, 113, 116, 105, 109, 106, 107, 104 and 110 located at village Deeli Tehsil Jammu which is in peaceful possession of the plaintiff and one Bansi Lal who have purchased 40 kanals 8 marlas out of this land by virtue of sale deeds dated 20.1.2000, 29.3.2000, 25.4.2000 and 8.8.2000 and the remaining land of 48 kanals 14 marlas stands leased out to them jointly for a period of 83 years by the land owners vide lease deeds dated 29.3.2000, 6.4.2000 and 8.4.2000. Alongside this suit, an application for issuance of temporary injuction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff till final disposal of the suit also came to be filed before the trial court. The defendants came to file their written statement, wherein they appear to have resisted the claim of respondent/plaintiff by stating inter-alia that the suit land is in possession of defendants and the same has been ac quired way back in the years 1947 to 1950. The learned trial court after hearing the parties allowed the petition and came to issue an ad-interim injuction restraining the defendants to interfere into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff with respect to suit land till the final disposal of of the suit. This order came to be challenged before the first appellate court by the defendants who after re-appraisal of the documents placed on the file by the parties came to dismiss the appeal after holding that the learned trial court was perfectly justified in allowing the petition for grant of ad-interim injuction.

3. The stand of Mr. Arora, Additional CGSC is that the plaintiff -respondent had filed a writ petition for the relief which has been prayed in the suit, the same came to be disposed of by this court by directing that if the plaintiff-respondent is in legal and valid possession, he shall not be dispossessed except in due course of law. The plaintiff sought review of this order before this court which came to be dismissed. Against this order, the plaintiff approached the Letters Patent Bench of this court in appeal which came to be dismissed. That the defendants are in possession of suit land and that defendant-1 has made requisition to the State Govt. for the acquisition of this land.

4. On the other hand, the stand of the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff is that the plaintiff alongwith one Bansi Lal has purchased 40 kanals and 8 marlas of suit land by virtue of various sale deeds and the remaining land has been leased out to them by owners of this land. He further contends that plaintiff alongwith one Bansi Lal has entered into possession of this land after the execution of sale deeds and lease deeds by the owners of this land in favour of the plaintiff and one Bansi Lal.

5. Considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and also perused the photo copy of the documents placed on file by the revisionists. From the perusal of this record, it reveals that respondent and one Bansi Lal purchased 40 kanals 8 marlas, the part of suit land by virtue of various sale deeds dated 20.1.2000, 29.3.2000, 25.4.2000 and 8.8.2000, whereby, title of the suit land alongwith possession came to be transferred by the erstwhile owners to them and they have also entered into possession of the remaining part of land by virtue of duly ex

Click Here to Read the rest of this document