The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging orders rejecting an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 CPC. The bench held that since the subject property (a shop) did not exist, the injunction would be futile, making the lower courts' decision correct.
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. 6963 of 2009 (O&M)
1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 6963 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.12. 2009
Ramesh Sharma
......petitioners
Versus
Birender Singh
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocate. for the petitioner.
SABINA, J.
Plaintiff Ramesh Sharma filed a suit for permanent injunction that the defendant be restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession. Along with the suit, application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed. Vide the impugned orders, the said application was dismissed by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the plaintiff.
2
Civil Revision No. 6963 of 2009 (O&M)
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present revision petition deserves to be dismissed.
The case of the plaintiff-petitioner is that he is a tenant over the shop in dispute. Admittedly, it is a case of oral tenancy between the plaintiff and the defendant. There is also no receipt regarding payment of rent by the plaintiff to the defendant. Admittedly, at the present moment, the shop in question is not in existence and the disputed area is a plot. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly held that even if some injunction order was passed in favour of the plaintiff, the same would not serve any purpose as the shop which was allegedly given on rent to the plaintiff is not in existence at the spot. Hence, the impugned orders cannot
be said to be perverse warranting interference by this Court.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE
December 10, 2009 anita
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned orders dismissing the application for permanent injunction were perverse and warranting interference under Article 227.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Ramesh Sharma
Birender Singh
SABINA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
