IMPORTANT POINT
Injunction - Once possession is lawful, suit for injunction simpliciter is maintainable, same cannot be thrown away at threshold in exercise of powers under provisions of Order VII Rule 11(d) of Code.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

The present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the Code”) is directed against the order dated 4th May 2017 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Bavla below Exhibit : 57 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code in Regular Civil Suit No.159 of 2006, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the application preferred by the applicants herein – original defendants.

2. The brief facts of the case can be stated as under:

2.1. The respondent herein – original plaintiff has instituted Regular Civil Suit No.159 of 2006 in the Court of learned Principal Civil Judge, Dholka for permanent injunction against the applicants herein – original defendants for the following reliefs:—

“(9) We, the plaintiff, hereby prays through this claim that:—

(A) The defendants themselves or through their men, servants, agents, relatives, associates in this case shall not forcibly and illegally remove us the plaintiff from the peaceful and direct possession of the suit property, i.e. the agricultural land admeasuring 4-19-86 Hectares (approx. 18 Bighas) bearing Survey No.30 situated at the outskirts of Village Mouje Kerala, Taluka Bavla, District Ahmedabad i.e. the said farm. Also they will not create any kind of movement, hindrance, detention, or interference over the field when we the plaintiff plows the field, sows its produce and takes its crops and not to make any illegal encroachment over the claimant’s farm. Also grant permanent injunction against the defendants of this case.

(B) Order all costs of this suit from the defendants.

(C) Grant such other relief as the Hon’ble Court may think fit and just.”

2.2. The applicants herein – original defendants having served with the notice of the suit, preferred an application Exhibit : 57 under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code on 20th April 2007.

2.3. At this stage, it is also important to note that in the said suit, the learned Trial Court, vide its order dated 21st May 2008 passed below Exhibit : 5, granted status quo in favour of the plaintiff holding, inter alia, that the plaintiff is in possession of the land in question pursuant to the agreement to sale. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the applicants herein – original defendants have approached the Appellate Court by way of Civil Miscellaneous Application No.79 of 2008, however, the said appeal came to be rejected by the learned 7th Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur vide its order dated 10th December 2013. Thus, the applicants herein have approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.213 of 2014, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 30th March 2017. This Court, while dismissing the petition, directed the Trial Curt to complete the hearing of the suit within a period of six months.

2.4. Thereafter, it appears that the learned Principal Civil Judge, Bavla, vide its order dated 4th May 2017, rejected the application of the applicants herein under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid, the applicants herein – original defendants have approached this Court by way of present Civil Revision Application for the reliefs prayed therein.

4. At the first instance, this Court, vide its order dated 9th May 2017, was pleased to issue notice making it returnable on 7th June 2017 with no interim relief whatsoever in nature, however, till the next date, the applicants herein were permitted to apply for the adjournment before the learned Trial Court. Thereafter, it appears from the ordersheet that time and again, the matter was adjourned on one or the other grounds without extension of arrangement made vide order dated 9th May 2017.

5. Today, when this matter was called out, at that time, it was pointed out by the learned advocate that the trial has already proceeded further and the evidence of plaintiff is over. As the Civil Revision Application is awaiting admission since 2017