A single judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the vacation of an interim injunction by the lower appellate court in a dispute regarding property allotment under an oustees quota scheme.
The petitions challenging the vacation of the interim injunction were dismissed.
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.
CR No. 1988 of 2009 [1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: 16.4.2009
(1) Civil Revision No. 1988 of 2009 (O&M)
Navin Raheja
.. Petitioner
Vs.
Shiv Darshan Kakkar and others
.. Respondents
(1) Civil Revision No. 1989 of 2009 (O&M)
Navin Raheja
.. Petitioner
Vs.
Babu Ram and others
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
Rajesh Bindal J.
This order will dispose of the above mentioned petitions bearing Nos. 1988 and 1989 of 2009, as the same arise out of a common litigation between the parties.
Challenge is to the order passed by the learned lower appellate court, whereby the interim injunction granted by the learned trial court in favour of the petitioner was vacated.
Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that general power of attorney of Vasika No. 12229 dated 11.5.2004 had become irrevocable and the plot allotted to Babu Ram son of Budhi under oustees quota belongs to the petitioner. Permanent injunction was sought restraining the transfer of the plot in question to Shiv Darshan Kakkar or any other person. The learned trial court directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to transfer of the plot till the decision of the suit. However, the learned lower appellate court, finding merit in the submissions made by the respondents, vacated the interim injunction. It is this order, which is impugned before this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once Babu Ram had
CR No. 1988 of 2009 [2}
assigned his rights in the property in favour of the petitioner after taking a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-, nothing lies in his mouth to claim subsequently that the documents were forged and fabricated as those were registered with Sub Registrar at Delhi. In addition to the assignment deed, Babu Ram had even executed a general power of attorney and a Will in his favour. In view of the aforesaid documentary evidence, the petitioner had been able to make out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction in his favour. He further submitted that the learned court below has committed illegality while going beyond the pleadings of the respondents in accepting the appeal filed by them and dismissing the application for interim injunction filed by the petitioner.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. It is a case where Babu Ram owned small piece of land measuring 10 kanals 9 marlas, which was acquired by the State vide notification dated 24.8.2001. In terms of the policy for allotment of plots to the oustees, he was entitled to allotment of plot measuring 500 square yards. The case set up by the petitioner is that he had got the rights of Babu Ram in the plot to be allotted assigned to him by way of execution of an assignment deed on 30.4.2004 after payment of full consideration money of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Babu Ram had even executed general power of attorney in favour of the petitioner and also a Will with regard to the property in question. The stand of Babu Ram is that these documents are forged and fabricated. He had merely engaged the services of the petitioner to pursue his case for allotment of the plot. Considering this fact and also the fact that power of attorney and the Will were got registered at Delhi, even though Babu Ram is a villager living at Gurgaon, whereas the petitioner is living at Delhi and also the fact that consideration money of Rs. 2,00,000/-, which is stated to have been paid by the petitioner for purchase of plot of 500 square yards was highly improbable, the learned lower appellate court reversed the interim of injunction passed in favour of the petitioner, after discussing the claim made by the parties threadbare which, in my opinion, does not call for any interference by this Court. I am refraining from dilating much on the merits of the controversy as the same may prejudice the case of either of the parties.
Accordingly, the present petitions are dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge
16.4.2009 mk
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the lower appellate court's order vacating the interim injunction granted in the petitioner's suit for declaration of rights and permanent injunction.
Navin Raheja
Shiv Darshan Kakkar
Babu Ram
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
