Rakesh Kumar, Jain, J.:- This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.8.1991, passed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Jalandhar, whereby an application filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 4, namely Biru, Lakhwinder Singh and Dev Singh, sons of Naranjan Singh under Section 144 of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (for short CPC) has been allowed and the appeal filed by the appellant against the aforesaid order has been dismissed by learned Addl.District Judge,Jalandhar, vide his impugned order dated 5.2.1992.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that land measuring 2 kanals 5 marlas situated in village Laroi, Tehsil and District, Jalandhar, was jointly owned in equal shares by two brothers, namely Gurbaksh Singh and Sucha Singh. Gurbaksh Singh sold the entire land to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on 19.12.1973 who got possession of the said land from Gurbaksh Singh co-sharer of Sucha Singh. Later on, Sucha Singh sold his half share in the said land to the appellant on 7.1.1974. The appellant filed a suit for possession of the said ½ share of Sucha Singh which was decreed by the trial court on 22.5.1975 wherein it was held that the appellant shall be entitled to ½ share i.e. 1 kanal 3 marla out of total 2 kanals 5 marlas. The judgment and decree of the trial court was upheld by the first Appellate Court. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 filed Regular Second Appeal No. 1436 of 1977 in this Court, which was disposed of on 27.5. 1986 with the following order:-

“That the appeal be partially allowed and the decree of the Senior Sub Judge, with enhanced appellate powers dated 20.7.1977, modifying that of the Sub Judge 2nd Class, Jalandhar dated 22.5.1975 be and the same is hereby modified to the extent that the plaintiff /respondent No.1 shall only be entitled to obtain possession of the decreed land by means of partition and not otherwise”.

Admittedly, when the order dated 27.5.1986 was passed by this Court in RSA No. 1436 of 1977, this fact was concealed by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 from the Court that the appellant had already taken possession of ½ share of land out of 2 kanals 5 marlas vide Rapat Roznamcha dated 26.7.1978. However, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 filed an application under Section 144 of C.P.C. for restoration of possession in accordance with the order dated 27.5.1986. The appellant had taken a stand before the Court below that the possession of the land in question was taken by him to the extent of his share vide Rapat Roznamcha dated 26.7.1978 much prior to the order of this Court dated 27.5.1986 and the factum of possession having been taken by the appellant was not brought to the notice of this Court by respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Therefore, the application filed under Section 144 of C.P.C.was challenged. Both the Courts below allowed the application filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and warrants were ordered to be issued for restoring the possession which was delivered to the appellant vide Rapat Roznamcha dated 26.7.1978.

3. In the present appeal, at the time of admission, stay was granted. As such, both the parties are in their respective possession since 1978.

4. Mr.Hemant Sarin, learned counsel for the appellant besides arguing on merits has submitted that both the parties are in possession of their land in equal share from the last 30 years i.e. since 1978. He also submitted that it would not be in the interest of justice to disturb their settled possession after 30 years as both the parties are using the land in their possession for agricultural purposes. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board through its Special Officer (Revenue) and another Versus M.R.F.Limited (1996) 1 Supreme Court Cases 597 to contend that in the matter of restitution, the Court should take a pragmatic view and frame relief which is reasonable, fair and practicable and does not bring about unmerited hardship to either party.

5. On the contrary, Mr.Amit Jhanji, learned counsel a