ALI BAIG, J.---This civil revision petition has been directed against the impugned judgment/order dated 24-04-2018 passed by the learned District Judge Diamer in Civil First Appeal No,03/2018 whereby the learned 1st Appellate Court has granted injunction order against the present petitioners/defendants by accepting appeal of the present respondent No,11 plaintiff.
2. Succinctly, facts of the case giving rise to the filing of this revision petition are that the present respondent No, 1/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against the respondents Nos,1 to 19 in the trial court claiming that the plaintiff/respondent No,1 is owner in possession of the suit land measuring 50 kanals which was allotted to him by the competent authority vide allotment order No,Rev.Comm/Allot-3/86-11 dated 20th March 1986. The plaintiff/ respondent No,1 has further averred in the plaint that later on the respondent No,1 has allotted the suit land to some Govt. Departments vide allotment order No,RC-3/(1) 2014 dated 29th August 2016 and subsequent allotment of the suit land to different departments is illegal and ineffective on the rights of the plaintiff/respondent No,1 and void ab-initio, hence the same may be cancelled to meet the ends of justice.
3. The respondents Nos,1 to 19 being defendants in the suit contested the suit by filing their written statement in the trial court wherein they have raised certain legal objections and have also repudiated the averments of plaint by asserting that allotment order No,Rev. Comm/Allot-3/ 86-11 dated 20th March 1986 is fake and forged as the competent authority has not allotted the suit land in favour of present respondent No,1/plaintiff and subsequent allotment order bearing No,RC- 3(1)/2014 dated 29th August 2016 is legal and valid one.
4. The present respondents/defendants Nos,20 to 22 were later on impleaded as defendants in the suit on their request through an application filed under Order I, Rule 10(2), C.P.C. The respondents/ defendants Nos,20 to 22 jumla Malikan Batogah etc. have also contested the suit by filing separate written statement in the trial court wherein they have also claimed that the suit land is owned by them.
5. Along with the plaint the plaintiff/respondent No,1 had filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. for grant of temporary injunction. The learned trial court after obtaining replication and hearing arguments on behalf of the parties dismissed the aforesaid application of the respondent No,1/plaintiff vide order dated 14-03-2018.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the afore said order of the learned trial court, the present respondent No, 1/plaintiff had filed civil first appeal in the court of learned District Judge Diamer. The learned District Judge Diamer after hearing arguments of the counsel for the parties has allowed the appeal of the plaintiff/respondent No,1 herein vide impugned judgment/order dated 24-04-2018 and temporary injunction was granted in favour of respondent No, 1/ plaintiff and against the present petitioners/ defendants.
7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment/order dated 24-04-2018, passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court, the present petitioners have preferred the instant revision petition in this court.
8. The learned Addl. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the 'petitioners contended that the suit land is Khalisa Sarkar and alleged allotment order `dated 20th March 1986 is fake as the `competent authority has not allotted the suit land in favour of the present respondent No,1/plaintiff rather the competent authority has allotted the suit land to different Government Departments vide allotment order dated 29th August 2016. The learned Addl. Advocate General further argued that the impugned judgment/ order passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court is contrary to law and facts on the record of the case as such the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned District Judge Diamer is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned Addl. Advocate General further argued that the disputed land is in possession of the petitioners and buildings/offices of various departments are being constructed on the suit land if the injunction order passed by the 1st Appellate Court is not set aside, the petitioners/defendants shall suffer irreparable loss.
9. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent No,1/plaintiff controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and supported the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court by contending that the competent authority vide allotment order dated 20th March 1986, has allotted the suit land to the respondent No, 1/plaintiff.
The learned counsel for the respondent No,1 further argued that after allotment of the suit land the revenue officials have handed over possession of the suit land to the plaintiff/respondent No,1 on 28-03-1986. Concluding his arguments the learned counsel for the respondent No, 1/plaintiff argued that the learned 1st Appellate Court has passed the well reasoned and speaking judgment in favour of the respondent No, 1/plaintiff which may be maintained in the interest of justice.
10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of present respondents No,2 to 4/ defendants Nos, 20 to 23 have half heartedly supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court but maintained that as per compromise decree dated 15-07-2010 passed by this court the respondents Nos,2 to 4 are owner of suit land. The learned- counsel for the respondents Nos,2 to 4 further argued that the allotment order bearing No, Rev. Comm/Allot-3/86-11 dated 20th March 1986 issued in favour of the respondent No, 1/plaintiff is forged document as the then Administrator/ Revenue Commissioner N.As has not allotted the suit land to the plaintiff/ respondent No,1. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos,2 to 4 further argued that the respondent No,1/plaintiff has also wrongly allotted the suit land in favour of various departments vide allotment order dated 29th August, 2016 as per compromise agreement and compromise decree dated 15-07-2010 passed by this court the respondents Nos,2 to 4 are bona fide owners of the disputed land.
11. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record With their able assistance.
12. It is well settled principle of law that in order to succeed in obtaining an order of injection under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., the plaintiff/respondent No, 1 is required to demonstrate a good prima facie case in his favour, the balance of convenience must also be in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff will likely to suffer irreparable loss and injury if injunction is not granted. No order of injunction could be granted unless the above said three conditions for grant of injunction exist.
13.From perusal of record it transpires that the plaintiff/respondent No,1 herein has filed suit for declaration with consequential relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants/present petitioners claiming that the suit land measuring 50 kanals situated at Harpin Das Chilas was allotted in favour of the plaintiff/ respondent No,1 by the then Administrator/ Revenue Commissioner N.As on the 4 recommendation of Federal Minister for Kashmir Affairs and N.As Affairs vide allotment order dated 20-03-1986.
14. In order to substantiate his claim the plaintiff/respondent No,1 has filed certified true copy of allotment order bearing No, Rev. Comm/Allot-3/86-11 dated 20th March 1986, a copy of delivery receipt dated 28-3-1986, Sajara Khsara and order of Tehsildar Chilas dated 28-3-1986 along with plaint. Attested copy of above mentioned public documents are available on the record of the case which have been obtained by the respondent No,1/ plaintiff from offices of petitioners Nos,1 and 4.
15. From tentative assessm ent of material/the above mentioned documents it shows that the disputed land was prima facie allotted in favour of the plaintiff/ respondent No,1 for the purpose of wood depot by the competent authority and revenue field staff have also handed over the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff/respondent No, 1 on 28-3-1986 as evident from delivery receipt dated 28-3-1986. Hence, plaintiff/respondent No,1 has succeeded to make out prima facie arguable case in his favour and balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff/respondent No,
1. Since the plaintiff/respondent No,1 is prima facie allottee of suit land and suit land is in his possession since 28-3-1986, therefore, if temporary injunction is not granted in favour of the plaintiff/respondent No, 1, he shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.
16. For what has been discussed above, I did not find any material irregularity and illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court which may warrant interference of this court rather the impugned judgment of the learned 1st Appellate Court is well reasoned and speaking judgment/order.
17. This civil revision petition being without any substance, stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Consequently, the impugned judgment/order dated 24-4-2018 passed by the learned District Judge is Maintained. File.