Balvindra Singh vs Surendra Singh & Ors on 15 December, 2008

                                                        SBCMA No.25/2008
                                 Balvindera Singh Vs. Surendra Singh & Ors.

                                      1



                 SBCMA No.25/2008
   Balvindera Singh Vs. Surendra Singh & Ors.

DATE OF ORDER : - 15.12.2008


         HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J.

Mr.Hemant Jain,for the appellant.

Mr. Trilok Joshi, for the respondents.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The appellant’s grievance against the impugned order

dated 30th Nov., 2007 is that the order to maintain the

status-quo may be misunderstood by the Irrigation

Authorities.

According to learned counsel for the appellant, the

respondent-plaintiff in his injunction application had

grievance that the property in question may be further

alienated and it was pleaded that in case the property will

be further alienated, the plaintiff will suffer irreparable

injury. It is pointed out that in para no.5 of the injunction

application the plaintiff himself stated that on the basis of
SBCMA No.25/2008
Balvindera Singh Vs. Surendra Singh & Ors.

2

the will dated 27th March, 1998 the defendant no.1 got his

name entered in revenue record by way of mutation in the

Jamabandi. However, that was done without notice to the

other party, but in view of the order of the trial court to

maintain the status-quo according to learned counsel for

the appellant, the appellant may have difficulty in getting

the irrigation slip.

Learned counsel for respondent Ravindra Singh stated

that as per the irrigation rules the person in possession or

the Khatedar – tenant recorded in the revenue record can

get the irrigation facility and there is no question of mis-

interpreting the impugned order since the order is to

maintain the status-quo.

The order of injunction is required to be read in the

context in which prayer has been sought and since the

plaintiff’s grievance was against only the alienation of the

property, therefore, it is to be read in context and,

therefore, the order means that the appellant shall not

further alienate the property.

In view of the above, I do not find that appellant can
SBCMA No.25/2008
Balvindera Singh Vs. Surendra Singh & Ors.

3

have any difficulty in getting any irrigation facility as per the

rules of the Irrigation Department.

In view of the above, the appeal of the appellant is

disposed of with above observation.

(PRAKASH TATIA), J.

c.p.goyal/-