Dismissed

Chander Pal v. Raminder Singh Sodhi

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Jul 2009CR/3259/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a revision petition challenging an interim order directing the petitioner to hand over possession of disputed property to the respondent, finding no jurisdictional error in the trial court's decision to enforce a temporary injunction.

What did the court decide?

Order passed by the Civil Court directing the petitioner to hand over possession of the property to the respondent within one month was upheld.

Chander Pal Vs Raminder Singh Sodhi — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 3259 of 2009

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CMs No. 14319-14320 & 13526-13527-CII of 2009 and Civil Revision No. 3259 of 2009 Date of decision: 01.07.2009

Chander Pal

...Petitioner

Versus

Raminder Singh

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA

¶11

Present: Mr. H.N.S. Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. T.P.S. Tung, Advocate, for the respondent.

¶13

¶14

VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

¶15

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 6.5.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kharar, vide which the petitioner has been directed to hand over the possession of the suit property to the respondent within a period of one month.

¶16

The respondent filed a suit for injunction along with an application for temporary injunction. The application was contested by the petitioner.

¶17

Civil Revision No. 3259 of 2009

¶18

-2-

¶19

After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court was pleased to hold, that it was the respondent who was in possession of the property in dispute on the date of filing of the suit, and accordingly the temporary injunction order was passed in favour of the respondent.

¶20

The order has attained finality, as it was not challenged by the petitioner in appeal. In spite of the injunction order, the respondent was dispossessed by the petitioner, and an application was moved for seeking back the possession.

¶21

Vide impugned order, the learned trial Court was pleased to allow the application and has directed the petitioner to hand back the possession within a period of one month. The police help has also been allowed to the respondent to enforce the order of injunction.

¶22

In spite of the order having been expired, it is the case of the petitioner that he has not handed over the possession of the property to the respondent.

¶23

The facts stated above are not in dispute. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was, that during the pendency of the suit, the keys of the shop were handed back to the petitioner by the respondent. However, this fact is denied by the respondent.

¶24

Be as it may, the petitioner was bound to comply with the order passed by the Civil Court, as the possession was taken in violation of the injunction order.

¶25

The order passed by the Civil Court does not suffer from

¶26

Civil Revision No. 3259 of 2009

¶27

-3-

¶28

any illegality or lack or jurisdiction, which may call for any interference by this Court.

¶29

No merit.

¶30

Dismissed.

¶31

(Vinod K. Sharma) Judge

¶32

July 01, 2009 R.S.

Chander Pal v. Raminder Singh Sodhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chander Pal v. Raminder Singh Sodhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Netar Kaur Vs P.S.E.B. and Ors.

Sant Shri Namdev Trust Vs Rajinder Parshad

Balbir Kaur Vs Mehnga Singh

Lakhbir Singh Vs Darshan Singh and Ors.

Devi Ram and Ors. Vs Hy State

Bhagwan Singh Vs Sonu and Ors.