Allowed

(O&M)Mohan Lal v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Oct 2009CR/4665/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision, the High Court allowed the petition and set aside lower court orders dismissing an ad-interim injunction application. The court held the suit's maintainability is to be decided during adjudication and directed parties to maintain status quo.

What did the court decide?

Set aside orders dismissing injunction; directed to maintain status quo while suit is pending.

(O&M)Mohan Lal Vs State of Haryana — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

Civil Revision No.4665 of 2002

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No.4665 of 2002

¶5

Date of Order: 22.10.2009

Mohan Lal

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

..Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

¶12

Present:- Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner

¶13

Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for respondents no.3 to 6.

¶14

RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral).

¶15

The petitioner challenges orders dated 08.06.2002 and 16.08.2002, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palwal and the Additional District Judge, Faridabad, dismissing his application for adinterim injunction and his appeal.

¶16

The petitioner, filed a suit for declaration that the sanad taksim prepared by the Assistant Collector-IInd Grade, Palwal, is contrary to the mode of partition. The petitioner also prayed for grant of an ad-interim injunction to protect his possession. The respondents, opposed the grant of an ad-interim injunction on the ground that as the sanad taksim has attained finality the suit is not maintainable.

¶17

The trial court as also the first appellate court have declined the prayer for injunction on the ground that in view of the sanction of a sanad taksim the suit is not maintainable.

¶18

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders.

¶19

Civil Revision No.4665 of 2002

¶20

¶21

The question whether the suit is maintainable or whether a suit can be filed to challenge a sanad taksim, is a matter to be decided during the adjudication of the suit. The courts below have not rejected the plaint on the ground that it is not maintainable. The petitioner's prayer for grant of an injunction to protect his possession should have, therefore, been considered favourably as admittedly, he is in possession. The grant of an injunction would prevent unnecessary complications, that would arise from alteration of possessions. It would also be necessary to mention here that while admitting the revision petition, parties were directed to maintain status quo.

¶22

As a consequence, the revision petition is allowed, the order passed by the courts below are set aside and it is directed that during the pendency of the suit, parties shall maintain status quo with respect to khasra Nos.14/1, 17/2, 23/2 and 24/1 contained in rectangle No.46 and khasra Nos.3/3/1 and 4/1 contained in rectangle No.56.

¶23

October 22, 2009 nt

¶24

(RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE

(O&M)Mohan Lal v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M)Mohan Lal v. State of Haryana

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

Pohap Singh Vs H.U.D.A. Faridabad

Ram Singh and Ors. Vs Shashi Parkash Puri and Anr.

Shri Ram Vs Ram Chander and Anr.

Dilbagh Singh Vs Simarjeet Kaur

Kulbir Singh Vs Ghan Shyam Dass & Ors.

Mahabir & or. Vs Satpal & or.