JUDGMENT
Nirmal Singh, J.
1. The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from dis-possessing him from the land mentioned in the head note-A and B of the plaint with a further prayer that the respondents/defendants should not alienate any portion of the above said property by way of sale, gift, mortgage or exchange. Along with the suit, an application for ad-interim injunction was also filed. Notice of the suit as well as of the application was given to the respondents/defendants.
2. Respondents/defendants appeared and contested the suit as well as the application and raised objections that the petitioner is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the suit; that the suit is not maintainable and that the petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts. It is also pleaded that the land has been partitioned between the parties and the property in dispute fell to the share of the respondents/defendants.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial court dismissed the application of the petitioner qua the property mentioned in head note-A of the plaint and regarding property mentioned in head note-B, the parties were directed to maintain status-quo.
4. Against the order of the learned trial court, the petitioner preferred appeal before
Additional District Judge, Bathinda, who rejected the appeal.
5. Aggrieved by the orders of the courts below, the present revision petition has been filed.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders.
7. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents/defendants being co-sharers in the property in dispute have no right to alienate the same till the partition is effected between the parties. It is pertinent to mention here that the plea taken by the petitioner that there is no partition between the parties is false and he has mis-lead the court while pleading that there was no partition between the parties. The petitioner had himself filed suit No. 130 of 2001, titled as Desh Raj v. Vinod Kumar. In paragraph 2 of that suit, the petitioner had pleaded as under:-
“2. That a family settlement took place between the parties, regarding the properties including the aforesaid land i.e. disputed land. An agreement was executed regarding this family settlement on 19.8.1966. As per family settlement the land measuring 3169 sq. yards came to the share of the plaintiff of land measuring 859 sq. yards of Khasra No. 1808/1 min came to the share of Kaur Chand son of Durga Dass. After some time Kaur Chand expired and defendants No. 1 to 4 are his legal representatives. Niranjan Lal also died after some time, whose L.Rs., are defendants No. 1 to 7. In this agreement no share was given to them in the land comprised in Khasra No. 1808/1 min, measuring (4-0). This agreement was acceptable and accepted by Kaur Chand and Niranjan Lal while the plaintiff did not accept this agreement and this agreement was not agreeable to the plaintiff on some grounds. The original agreement is in possession of defendant No. 1, while the photostat copy of the agreement was given to the other party. The land 3169 Sq. yards has been shown in green and red colour which is marked as A, B and E and D which was given to the plaintiff, and the land measuring 869 sq. yards has been shown in yellow colour which is marked DCEF in the site plan as per agreement dated 19.8.1966. The land measuring 3169 sq. yards was towards East 60′ wide road while the land measuring 859 sq. yards is towards West Santpura road. Photostat copy of the agreement and site plan are attached herewith. Out of 3169 Sq. yards, 760 Sq. yards has come under proposed 100′ road while out of 859 sq. yards 648 sq. yards has come under 100 ft. wide road.”
8. From the pleading of the petitioner itself, it is established that there was a family partition between the parties. The petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands and a party who does not come to the court with clean hands and tries to suppress the material facts was not entitled to equitable relief of ad-interim injunction.
9. For the reasons mentioned above, the revision petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 3,000/-.