This dismissal order addressed a writ petition seeking to challenge the rejection of an interim injunction application. The High Court found no ground to interfere with the lower court's refusal to grant the injunction, holding that the petitioners failed to establish a prima facie case of right or potential irreparable loss.
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.
C.R. No. 5848 of 2009 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.R. No. 5848 of 2009
Date of Decision: October 13, 2009
Sucha Singh and others
…..Petitioners
Vs.
Bakhshish & others
…..Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.
-.-
Present:Mr. Jaideep Verma, Advocate for the petitioners.
-.-
M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)
Vide impugned order annexure P-3 dated July 24, 2008 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Anandpur Sahib, and order dated August 28, 2009 (annexure P-4) passed by Lower Appellate Court, application of the plaintiff- petitioners for interim injunction of restrain the defendantrespondents from forcibly raising construction and causing obstruction in the natural flow of water from the Eastern side to western side on a passage
C.R. No. 5848 of 2009 [2]
adjacent to the house of plaintiff- petitioners and defendant- respondents stands dismissed.
Counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the site plan annexure P-1 which is also part of the lower Court record to contend that by the construction and obstruction raised by defendant- respondent, the flow of the water from portion ABEF towards portion BCDE will be obstructed.
A perusal of the order passed by the Additional District Judge indicates that the plaintiff- petitioners have not been able to prima facie establish their right, title or interest over the property in dispute. They have also not been able to establish that any irreparable loss would be caused to them in case the interim injunction is declined. I do not find any ground to interfere in the well reasoned judgment of the Additional District Judge, Rupnagar. No ground is made out for interference.
Dismissed.
October 13, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court could interfere with the dismissal of the application for interim injunction on grounds of failure to prima facie establish right and irreparable loss.
Sucha Singh and others
Bakhshish & others
M.M.S. Bedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
