J.V Gupta, J.:— This revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, dated 6th August, 1985, whereby the order of the trial Court dated 12th April, 1985, declining the ad interim injunction prayed for by the plaintiffs, was set aside and the defendants were restrained from raising any construction over the land, in dispute.
2. At the time of the motion hearing on 6th September, 1985, the operation of the impugned order was stayed meanwhile.
3. The trial Court directed defendants Nos. 1, 2 & 3 to furnish surety bonds in the sum Rs. of 20,000/- each giving undertaking that they would remove the construction, if any, raised by them, at their own risk and costs whithout claiming any compensation from the other co-sharers of on any portion of the suit property their rights were not established. Their acts in regard to the suit property would also not bind the other co-sharers if they failed to prove their rights therein. It was on account of that direction that the application for the grant ad-interim injunction was dismissed by the trial Court. In appeal, learned Additional District Judge set aside the order dismissing the application for the grant of the ad-interim injunction, allowed the appeal thereto and restrained the defendants from raising any construction over the suit land vide impugned order, as observed earlier. Dissatisfied with the same the defendants have come up in revision to this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs respondents cited Hindustan Aeronautics v. Ajit Prasad . 1972 3 SCC 195 to contend that the High Court could not interfere with the order of the lower appellate Court unless it has exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
5. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down in the above-said case. In the present case, the apppellate Court has set aside the order of the trial Court illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. In view of the direction given by the trial Court, there was no justification for interference therewith in appeal in the facts and circumstances of this case. Moreover, the defendants are likely to suffer irreparable loss if they are restrained from raising construction as prayed by the plaintiffs because the cost of construction is going high day by day.
6. In this view of matter, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and that of the trial Court dated 12th April, 1985, is restored. In case, the undertaking as ordered by the trial Court has not been given by the defendants as yet, they shall do so within one month from today. In order to expedite the disposal of the suit, it is directed that both the parties shall lead their evidence at their own responsibility though dasti aummonses may be given, if so desired, under Order XVI rule 7-A, Code of the Civil Procedure.
H.L.S
Revision petition allowed.