Disposed

(O&M)Rulda Ram v. Gram Panchayat Bathoi Kalan

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Apr 2009CR/5360/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition challenging an ad-interim injunction set aside by first appellate court, the High Court maintained status-quo order. The bench held that title questions should be decided by trial court after evidence appreciation.

What did the court decide?

Status-quo in respect of suit property shall be maintained till decision of suit; trial court to decide suit within six months.

(O&M)Rulda Ram Vs Gram Panchayat… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

C.R. No. 5360 of 2006 . Date of Decision: 23^rd April, 2009 .

¶3

Sher Singh

¶4

....Petitioner through Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate

¶5

Versus

¶6

Gram Panchayat

¶7

...Respondent through None.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶10

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL)

¶14

This order shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 5360 and 5361 of 2006 as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. The facts are being extracted from Civil Revision NO. 5360 of 2006.

¶15

This revision petition has arisen out of ad-interim injunction proceedings under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. While the trial Court had granted ad-interim injunction, the said order was set aside by the first appellate Court.

¶16

When this Revision Petition came up for preliminary hearing, this Court, vide order dated 16.10.2006 directed the parties to maintain status-quo. This ad-interim order was made absolute while admitting the revision petition.

¶17

No one appears on behalf of the respondent-Gram

¶18

Panchayat.

¶19

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, I am of the considered view that the question pertaining to title qua the land in question can be effectively decided by the trial Court after appreciation of the evidence led by the parties. It is not desirable or expedient to express any views touching merits of the case as it may unnecessarily prejudice either of the parties. The directions to maintain status-quo are operating from last more than two and half years. In these circumstances, I dispose of this revision petition with a direction that status-quo in respect of the suit property shall be maintained till the decision of the suit. Learned trial Court shall endeavour to decide the civil suit as early as possible and preferably within six months.

¶20

Disposed of.

¶21

April 23, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE

(O&M)Rulda Ram v. Gram Panchayat Bathoi Kalan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M)Rulda Ram v. Gram Panchayat Bathoi Kalan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Singh Vs Sumer Singh & Ors.

Santokh Singh Vs Avtar Singh and Others

Parshant Gupta Vs Mc Narnaul etc.

(O&M)Krishan Kumar Vs Lehari Singh

Ram Mehar Vs Jogi Ram and Ors.

Surinder Kumar and Nar Vs Kewal Krishan and Ors.