A single judge dismissed a revision petition under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC as infructuous because the subject property had already been sold by the respondent, rendering any injunction order futile.
Revision petition dismissed as infructuous; petitioner at liberty to file applications in Trial Court.
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.1869 of 2010 (O&M)
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.1869 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:24.09.2010.
Gurmeet Singh ...Petitioner Versus Shadi Khan and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Ms. Smriti Dhir, Advocate, for respondent No.2. *****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL)
This revision petition has arisen out of the orders passed by the Courts below by which application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to restrain the defendants/respondents from alienating the suit property, has been dismissed.
Incidentally, the plaintiff/petitioner has never been granted injunction by the Courts below. Ms. Ekta Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, informs the Court that her client Shadi Khan alias Shadi Ram (respondent No.1) has already sold the property in dispute, therefore, it is submitted that injunction order, if any, issued against her client would be an exercise in futility and that, as a matter of fact, this revision petition
C.R. No.1869 of 2010 (O&M) - 2 -
*********
has become infructuous.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would now make a prayer before the learned Trial Court for impleadment of the subsequent purchaser as a party so that he may not further alienate the suit property. However, he admitted that the present revision petition has become infructuous.
Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed as infructuous. The petitioner is at liberty to file any application before the Trial Court, if he so chooses, as per law.
September 24, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE
Gurmeet Singh
Shadi Khan
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
