' This revision petition is directed against the order dated 22-5-2002 of the learned Additional District Judge, Shakargarh whereby on the appeal of respondents Nos.3, 3-C to 3-K the order, dated 26-4-2001 issuing temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner was set aside.
2. The case of the petitioner was that he was in .Possession of an area measuring 1.1 Kanals, 17 Marlas of Shamlat Deh which was still partitioned. He prayed for permanent injunction that the defendants in the suit be restrained from dispossessing him from the suit-land till the property was partitioned. Along with the plaint he filed an application for grant of temporary injunction which was allowed Vide order dated 26-4-2001 and the parties were directed to maintain status quo. The entries of Khasra Girdawari for the year 1995-96 were relied upon by the learned trial Court.
3. The defendants in the suit filed, an appeal which was allowed vide order, dated 22-5-2002.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned First Appellate Court did not even advert to the reasoning of the trial Court particularly the entries of Khasra Girdawari 'for the year 1995-96. It is further contended that as co-sharer in possession, the petitioner was entitled to maintain his possession unless the land of Shamlat Deh was partitioned in accordance with law.
5. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner have been considered. It may be noted that the petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No,9354 of 2001 against S.H.O., Police Station, Lessar Kalan, Tehsil Shakargarh, District Narowal and four others with a grievance that he was being threatened with dispossession. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 24-9-2001 with the observation that the petitioner had himself got status quo order and was misusing the same. Against the said order, the petitioner filed I.C.A. No,838 of 2001 which was dismissed on 16-10-2001.
6. The record of Writ Petition No,9354 of 2001, earlier filed by the petitioner was also examined.
According to the report of the learned Assistant Commissioner, Shakargarh the land in dispute was reserved for public welfare, for the village pond and that no single land owner had any right to use it for his own benefit. It was further reported that the petitioner unlawfully encroached the said land on 1-3-2000 and on the complaint of the right holder of the village he was ordered to be ejected on 6-9-2000. After obtaining status quo order from the Civil Court, the petitioner tried to take illegal possession of the disputed land.
7. The learned Appellate Court noted that on an application made under section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner was ordered to be ejected and on 6-9-2000 the said order was implemented vide report Roznamcha Waqiati dated 6-9-2000. Further that after obtaining the status quo order the petitioner tried to take possession of the suit property on which criminal case was registered against him. The petitioner suppressed from the plaint the proceedings taken against himunder section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the order passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner and then after obtaining status quo order he again tried to take possession of the suit property. It was, therefore, rightly observed by the learned First Appellate Court that the petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands.
8.
8. The learned trial Court relied on the Khasra Girdawari for the year 1995-96 but ignored the subsequent event particularly the ejectment of the petitioner from the land in dispute. The suit filed by the petitioner was one for the permanent injunction simpliciter and it is doubtful whether such a suit was maintainable against the co-sharers. The grant or refusal of temporary injunction essentially lay in the discretion and in this case, the learned First Appellate Court has rightly exercised discretion in recalling the injunctive order. No case is made out for interference. This revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
9. ' .