JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J. (Oral)

1. For, the issue involved is identical in both the above mentioned cases, they shall be disposed of by way of a common judgment. The facts are primarily being derived from CR No.3083 of 2024, titled as Randhir Singh and others Vs. Harbhajan Singh and another.

2. The present revision petition is directed against order dated 25.04.2024, passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Yamunanagar, vide which the prayer made by the petitioners-defendants for stay of operation of the judgment and decree dated 18.03.2024 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Yamunanagar was declined and at the same time it was observed that in case the respondents-plaintiffs decide to cut and remove the trees standing over the suit land, they would render proper accounts in the trial Court.

3. A suit was filed by the respondents-plaintiffs for declaration to the effect that the entries in the column of Jamabandi regarding gair marusi in favour of the ancestors of the appellants-defendants were wrong and illegal and that the respondents-plaintiffs were not bound by the same and for permanent injunction restraining the appellants-defendants from interfering in the physical possession of the respondents-plaintiffs over the land (fully described in the plaint) situated at village Kalawar, Tehsil Mustafabad, District Yamunanagar. An injunction was also sought restraining the appellants-defendants from cutting and removing the Poplar trees standing on the suit land and from dispossessing the appellants-defendants from the same.

4. The said suit was decreed by way of judgment and decree dated 18.03.2024 (Annexure P-1). Counter claim was also filed by the appellants-defendants seeking an injunction that they be not dispossessed from the suit land. A plea of having become owners by way of adverse possession was also raised. Against the said judgment and decree dated 18.03.2024, an appeal was filed by the appellants-defendants in which a prayer was made to stay the operation of the impugned judgment and decree. The said prayer was declined and at the same time, it was stated that if the respondents-plaintiffs cut the poplar trees standing on the suit land, they would submit proper accounts for the same.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the said order is not sustainable. He submits that being in a first appeal, the operation of the impugned order deserves to be stayed and in any case, the respondents-plaintiffs could not be permitted to cut the trees standing on the suit land.

5. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondents- plaintiffs submits that there is no illegality in the said order as the trees, being caught are required to be cut.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7. The suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs was decreed and the counter claim filed by the appellants-defendants was dismissed. While decreeing the suit, the trial Court returned the following findings

"40. In view of the discussion held for issue No. 1 and 2 and 6 & 7, the suit of the plaintiffs is hereby decreed with cost to the effect that the entries in the column of occupation of jamabandi regarding Gair marusi in favour of ancestors of defendants are wrong, illegal, void and ineffective and are liable to the expunged from the revenue record. The plaintiffs are also held entitled to decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of plaintiffs over the suit land and also restrained from dispossessing them from the suit property by way of obstructing the passage leading to the suit property and are also restrained from cutting and removing the popular trees over the suit land. Further, the counter-claim of the defendants is dismissed. Decree sheet be prepared filed by consigned to record-room"

8. An appeal was preferred against the said judgment and decree by the defendants and a prayer for stay of operation of the orde