Point of Law: Implementation of order - Plaintiff is not sure of boundaries of land of which he claims ownership and that is why he had moved application for appointment of Commissioner before trial court - Court does not find any reason to interfere with impugned orders.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner herein preferred Civil Suit against the respondents which is being tried by the court of learned 2nd Additional Munsiff, Jammu. In an application filed for interim relief the learned trial court passed interim directions in favour of the petitioner herein vide order dated 09.05.2014, whereby the parties to the suit are directed to maintain the status quo on spot with respect to the suit lands till next date of hearing. It appears from the record available that an application came to be filed on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff herein seeking implementation of order dated 09.05.2014 and the trial court vide order dated 30.08.2019 passed the following order in the case.

“It is therefore directed to I/C P/P Pouni Chak, Jammu to implement the Order dated 09.05.2014 passed in above aforementioned suit in letter and spirit. It is a dispute in the case with respect to identification of suit land and for demarcation of suit land a Commissioner (Tehsildar Phallian Mandal) has been appointed as the Commissioner may take some time to file report. I/C P/P Pouni Chak Jammu is therefore directed to get identification of suit land from the concerned Revenue officials before implementation of order dated 09.05.2014 as the order cannot be implemented in letter and spirit before the demarcation of suit land. Office is directed to serve a copy of interim order dated 09.05.2014 upon I/C P/P Pouni Chak, Jammu. Application is accordingly, disposed of and shall form part of the main file.”

2. Another application came to be filed for implementation of the aforesaid order dated 09.05.2014 and the court again passed order dated 08.01.2020, the relevant extract of which reads as under:-

“It is therefore directed to SSP, Jammu to implement the Order dated 09.05.2014 passed in above aforementioned suit in letter and spirit. It is a dispute in the case with respect to identification of suit land and for demarcation of suit land a Commissioner (Tehsildar Phillian Mandal, Jammu) has been appointed as the Commissioner may take some time to file report. SSP Jammu is therefore directed to get identification of suit land from the concerned Revenue officials before implementation of order dated 09.05.2014 as the order cannot be implemented in letter and spirit before the demarcation of suit land. Office is directed to serve a copy of plaint and copy of interim order dated 09.05.2014 upon SSP, Jammu. Application is accordingly, disposed of and shall form part of the main file.”

3. The petitioner herein is aggrieved of the orders passed by the trial court vide dated 30.08.2019 and 08.01.2020 on the ground that the orders impugned are perverse and illegal and even contrary to the interim order dated 09.05.2014 passed by the trial court. By virtue of impugned orders the court has kept its own interim order dated 09.05.2014 in abeyance as it has directed identification of the suit land from the concerned Revenue Officer before order dated 09.05.2014 is implemented. The trial court should have directed the implementation of order dated 09.05.2014 instead of observing that the said order could not be implemented without demarcation of the suit land.

4. The respondents stand served and are represented through their counsel. The precise submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner herein is that the trial court was bound to implement its own order dated 09.05.2014 passed as a measure of interim relief in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs in the suit. By directing the revenue agency to demarcate the suit property the trial court could not escape from its responsibility of implementing its own interim order passed on 09.05.2014.

5. Mr. R.K. Jain, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has argued that the orders passed by the trial court which are impugned in the present petition are perfectly justified. The petitioner being not aware and certain of the suit property he could not seek implementation of the interim ord