A person seeking equity must do equity, and the High Court should be slow in interfering with the order of the first Appellate Court.

R.L. Anand, J. - This is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 30.8.2000 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala, who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC by affirming the order dated 22.7.2000 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Rajpura.

2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner:

Krishan Lal, the present petitioner, was a lessee of the land in question belonging to Gram Panchayat, Hari Majra. The lease of the petitioner/plaintiff was upto 30.4.2000. It expired with the expiry of time. The plaintiff did not surrender the possession of the suit land to the Gram Panchayat and filed a suit for permanent injunction praying that he is occupying the suit land as a lessee holding over and, therefore, he cannot be ejected from the suit land except in due course of law. Along with the suit, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC praying that during the pendency of the suit he should not be dispossessed from the land in question. The suit was contested by the Gram Panchayat. According to the Gram Panchayat, the lease of the petitioner expired on 30.4.2000 and, thereafter the land has been leased out to respondent No. 3.

3. Both the parties addressed arguments before the trial Court and vide order dated 22.7.2000, the application of the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, the plaintiff/petitioner filed appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, before the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, who, for the following reasons as given in paras No. 9 and 11, dismissed the same :

"9. The undisputed facts are that the land in question was on lease with the appellant for successive periods but the last lease deed expired on April 30, 2000. It is also undisputed that lease for subsequent period was not granted in favour of the appellant. That being so, the appellant was obliged to hand over peaceful, vacant possession of the suit land to the respondent- Gram Panchayat immediately after the expiry of the period of lease on April 30, 2000. The contention that no resolution for leasing out the land to anybody else has been passed and particulars of the person in whose favour lease has been granted are not disclosed, is found to be totally fallacious and untenable. The appellant has no business to ask for these matters at this stage and in these proceedings.

10. The moment lease in favour of the appellant came to an end by efflux of time character of his possession over the suit land is nothing more than that of a trespasser. Discretionary relief of injunction cannot be adverted to safeguard the wrong-door and those who do not come forward to accomplish their part of the agreement.

11. Consequently, the order under appeal is found to be suffering from no illegality, irregularity or perversity. Same is accordingly maintained and affirmed and as a natural consequent, the appeal is found to be devoid of any substance and is hereby dismissed. The parties through their counsel are directed to be present before the learned trial Court on the date already fixed in the matter. Appeal file be consigned and trial Court record be returned after due compliance."

Hence the present revision.

4. I have heard Mr. R.C. Dogra, Sr. Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Mrs. Monika Jalota, Advocate on behalf of added respondent Bittu and with their assistance have gone through the records of the cases.

5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the though the lease in favour of the petitioner was upto 30.4.2000 but he has never parted with the possession to the Gram Panchayat. At the most, the status of the petitioner is a tenant holding over. His possession is not illegal. Since the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land, he cannot be ejected from the suit land except in due course of law. The learned counsel relies upon the revenue record to show that the plaintiff is st