IMPORTANT POINT
Injunction--Concealment of material facts--Plaintiffs not entitled to discretionary relief of temporary injunction.

Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral):- Plaintiffs having failed to secure temporary injunction in both the Courts below, have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging orders of the Courts below.

2. Plaintiffs have alleged that they are in possession of the suit land depicted by letters ‘ABCD’ in red colour in the site plan being cosharers. This land does not exceed their share in the joint land. Other co-sharers are also in exclusive possession of their respective share in the joint land. Defendants have no right, title or interest in the joint land measuring 167 kanals 5 marals described in the plaint. It was earlier meant for Kabristan i.e graveyard, but is now within Municipal limits. Defendants threatened to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit property and to demolish their existing structure and to change the nature of the suit property by raising construction. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunction against said threatened actions of the defendants. By moving application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs also claimed temporary injunction to the same effect during pendency of the suit.

3. Defendants No.1 and 2 i.e. State of Haryana and Divisional Forest Officer resisted the suit and the application and inter alia pleaded that water works constructed before independence of the country is in existence at the spot. Earlier Municipal Committee was in control of the water works which is now under the control of the State Government. There is also 8 to 9 feet high boundary wall of the water works. There is also Government Nursery in the suit property. The plaintiffs without any right partly demolished part of Southern wall to make a small gate of about 3 feet width and tried to construct a room, but the matter was reported to Police and FIR was registered against the plaintiffs. It was pleaded that plaintiffs are not in possession of khasra No.413 wherein water works is in existence for more than 70 to 80 years. Even if the plaintiffs or their predecessors had any interest in the said land, the same stands extinguished by passage of time. There is ploy house, green house and sprinkler system in the Government Nursery. Various other pleas were also raised.

4. Defendant No.3-Executive Engineer also broadly took the same stand as that of defendant Nos.1 and 2.

5. Learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Bhiwani vide impugned order dated 08.08.2008 Annexure P-1 dismissed the plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction. Appeal preferred against the said order by the plaintiffs has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani vide impugned judgment dated 12.10.2010 Annexure P-3. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed the instant revision petition assailing orders Annexures P-1 and P-3.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file.

7. Except producing a site plan, the plaintiffs-petitioners did not produce any document before the trial Court to even remotely depict that they are co-sharers in the suit land or they are in exclusive possession thereof. On the contrary, the plaintiffs possibly cannot dispute the existence of water works and Government Nursery at the spot. Water works is obviously not in the possession and control of the plaintiffs. Earlier it was in possession and control of Municipal Committee earlier and is now in possession and control of the defendants. Even report of the Local Commissioner depicted the existence of water works and Government Nursery. Local commissioner was appointed by the trial Court at the instance of the plaintiffs themselves. FIR also stands registered against the plaintiffs for trying to encroach upon the suit land. There is no material on record to depict that plaintiffs are prima facie in possession of the suit land in any capacity whatsoever.

8. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/petitioners contended that plaintiff