Civil revision petition filed to set aside orders dismissing an application for ad-interim injunction and an appeal. The High Court upheld the lower courts' dismissal, holding the petitioner failed to prove possession of the land in dispute.
The revision petition was dismissed; the orders of the Courts below were upheld.
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.
Civil Revision No. 4361 of 2009
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 4361 of 2009 Date of Decision: 04.08.2009
Mahesh Kumar son of Om Parkash Gill son of Beeru, r/o Partap Gali, Kaithal, District Kaithal.
... Revision-Petitioner
Versus
Sohan Lal son of Basheshar, r/o Mate Gate, Kaithal, District Kaithal.
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER
Present: Mr. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, Advocate, for the revision-petitioner.
SHAM SUNDER, J.
This revision-petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner, for setting aside the order dated 26.02.09, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal, and the judgement dated 23.05.09, rendered by District Judge, Kaithal, vide which the appeal was dismissed.
Civil Revision No. 4361 of 2009
2
No. 388, khasra No.150, situated within the revenue estate of Patti Dogar, Kaithal. It was stated that after the death of Beeru Ram, the father of the plaintiff, and after his death the plaintiff, had been in possession of the land, in dispute. It was further stated that the plaintiff belonged to barber caste and has got 'Borkka' of his ancestors constructed, on this land, which is a grave yard of barber community. It was further stated that the defendant, has no right or interest, in the property, in dispute. It was further stated that the defendant threatened to raise construction thereon. The defendant, was many a time asked, not to do so, but to no avail. On his final refusal, to desist from his illegal designs, left with no other alternative, a suit for permanent injunction, was filed.
Civil Revision No. 4361 of 2009
3
vacant. Khasra girdwari of the same was got illegally changed by Naresh Kumar and Anil Kumar, in their favour. They were requested by Hindu Nais of Kaithal, to get the entries corrected, in favour of the Nai community, as a whole. They agreed to this request. Thereafter Hindu Nais, had been in possession of this property. They have sunk a submersible pump, in it, and constructed the boundary wall around it. The foundation of temple and two rooms have already been filled upto DPC level and three walls of one room have been raised upto the height of 8-9 feet. The construction of another room of the temple, was also being raised. It was further stated that the plaintiff, was, thus, not entitled to the injunction prayed for.
Civil Revision No. 4361 of 2009
4
grand-father.
(SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE
04.08.2009 Amodh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Courts below committed illegality, material irregularity, or perversity in dismissing the application for ad-interim injunction.
Whether the petitioner prima-facie established possession of the land comprising khasra No. 150 to be entitled to temporary injunction.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mahesh Kumar
Sohan Lal
Sham Sunder
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
