Single judge allowed respondents to complete an existing room construction on suit land pending appeal, balancing equities and preventing prejudice to petitioner while restricting area expansion.
Respondents entitled to complete the room already constructed; prohibited from increasing construction area beyond existing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R. No. 1032 of 2009 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.R. No. 1032 of 2009
Date of Decision: October 13, 2009
Shingara Singh
…..Petitioner
Vs.
Kashmir Kaur and others
…..Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.
-.-
Present:Mr. A.G.S. Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioner.
-.-
M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)
In the application of the plaintiff- petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, the Appellate Court has observed that raising of construction by the defendant- respondents during the pendency of the appeal on the suit land will not result in any irreparable loss to the plaintiffpetitioner.
C.R. No. 1032 of 2009 [2]
During the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioner contended that it is only room- kotha which is being constructed by the respondents. The respondents have also admitted that they have constructed one room in the suit property and in case they are not permitted to complete the same, the respondents will suffer an irreparable loss.
After hearing counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that in case during the pendency of the appeal the respondents who are in actual physical possession of the property, are permitted to complete the construction of a room already constructed on the suit land, it will not, in any manner, prejudice the rights of the petitioner. So far as the room which has already been constructed is concerned, the balance of convenience lies in favour of the respondents.
Striking a balance between the rights of both the parties, this revision petition is disposed of with an observation that the respondents will be entitled to complete the construction of the room which has already been raised on the suit land but will not be entitled to further increase the area of the construction beyond the construction which is already existing on the spot as on date.
With the above observation, this petition is partly allowed and partly dismissed.
October 13, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether respondents in possession are entitled to complete existing construction without prejudice to petitioner's rights pending appeal.
Whether balance of convenience lies with respondents to complete the constructed room.
Whether respondents can increase construction area beyond existing status quo.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shingara Singh
Kashmir Kaur
M.M.S. Bedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
