1. This petition for revision is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kaithal, dated 10th of May, 1972, whereby he rejected the petitioner's application under Section 151 read with order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code, for restoration of possession of property during the pendency of the suit between the parties. The relevant facts are as follows:
The Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Kaithal, passed an order of the petitioners' ejectment under Act No. 18 of 1961 at the instance of the respondent Gram Sabha. The present petitioners and others challenged the validity of this order by means of a suit and on their application the learned Subordinate Judge issued an interim order directing that status quo with regard to possession be maintained till the final decision of the suit. Despite this stay order the Sarpanch of the respondent Gram Panchayat applied for the execution of the ejectment order to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), exercising the powers of the Assistant Collector, supported by an affidavit stating, inter alia, that no injunction from any Court against taking possession of the land had been issued. The Assistant Collector thereupon issued warrants for possession, in execution of which the Gram Sabha dispossessed the present petitioners on the 1st of October, 1971.
2. Complaining that the order of the Court directing that the status quo be maintained by the parties has been disobeyed, the present petitioners, who were plaintiffs before the Subordinate Judge, prayed that the possession be restored to them. The learned Subordinate Judge rejected this prayer solely on the ground that the petitioners were dispossessed in execution of warrants for dispossession issued by the Assistant Collector, and the Civil Court was not competent to interfere with that order of the Revenue Court.
3. Mr. N. C. Jain, appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, the learned Subordinate Judge had ample power to order restoration of possession which had been taken in disobedience of the interim injunction issued by it. In support of this contention, he has cited State of Bihar v. Usha Devi, AIR 1956 Pat 455, and Aygammal v. Thangavelu Padayachi, AIR 1950 Mad 317. The rule laid down in these authorities is not challenged and I have no hesitation in agreeing with Mr. Jain that if a party had benefited by disobeying an injunction order issued by a Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, the restoration of the benefit to the aggrieved party can be ordered. This principle, however, does not apply to the facts of the case before me as the possession has been delivered under the orders of a Revenue Court and in execution of the warrants issued by it. It no doubt appears that the warrants were obtained by the Gram Sabha by suppressing the fact that the Civil Court had ordered the status quo to be maintained, but the fact remains that the petitioners were dispossessed in obedience to the orders of a Revenue Court. So long as that order is not set aside by a competent authority or the original order of ejectment, to which the suit pertains, is not declared to be invalid or void, the restoration of possession cannot be ordered. The Court under whose warrants the petitioners have been dispossessed is a Court of independent jurisdiction. No order of injunction was granted to it nor could it be, and even if the Assistant Collector had wrongly ordered the execution to proceed, the Civil Court cannot interfere as there is no complaint that the Assistant Collector acted without jurisdiction. The question whether the Sarpanch, at whose instance the warrants of ejectment were issued, can be punished for disobedience of the injunction order is not before me and I express no opinion on it. If the Sarpanch had put in a false affidavit to obtain execution of ejectment order he can be prosecuted.
4. Finding no merit in this petition I dismiss the same. In the circumstances of the case, I, however, leave the parties to bear their own costs.
5. Petition dismissed.