Disposed

Sardool Singh v. Rattan Singh and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Aug 2010CR/2388/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The revision petition under Article 227 was disposed of as the temporary injunction application was pending disposal in the trial court. The High Court directed the trial court to decide it by September 2010 and imposed a status quo order on the suit land in the meantime.

What did the court decide?

Directed trial court to dispose of temporary injunction application by September 2010; parties to maintain status quo regarding possession of suit land.

Sardool Singh Vs Rattan Singh and Anr. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

C. R. No. 2388 of 2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Case No. : C. R. No. 2388 of 2010

¶5

Date of Decision : August 05, 2010

¶6

Sardool Singh

¶7

.... Petitioner Vs.

¶8

Rattan Singh and another .... Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

¶10

¶11

Present : Ms. Sonia G. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

None for the respondents.

¶13

¶14

L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :

¶15

Petitioner has filed suit against respondents for permanent injunction. Respondents/defendants put in appearance through counsel in the trial court on 11.03.2010 and sought adjournment for filing written statement and reply to application for temporary injunction. The case was adjourned to 06.05.2010 for this purpose. However, the plaintiff-petitioner requested for ad interim injunction in the meanwhile restraining the defendants not to disturb the possession of the plaintiff over the land measuring 41 kanals 18 marlas. The said prayer of the plaintiff was declined by the trial court i.e. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Assandh, vide order dated 11.03.2010, which is under challenge in the

¶16

C. R. No. 2388 of 2010

¶17

¶18

instant revision petition filed by the plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file, whereas none has appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of service.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that application for temporary injunction has not yet been finally disposed of by the trial court and the case is now fixed for 26.08.2010 in the trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner's share in the joint land comes to 41 kanals 18 marlas, for which the plaintiff-petitioner is claiming temporary injunction.

¶21

Since application for temporary injunction moved by the plaintiff-petitioner has not yet been finally disposed of by the trial court, it would not be appropriate to express any opinion in the matter of temporary injunction by this Court. Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed of by directing the trial court to finally dispose of the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction in accordance with law by the end of September 2010.

¶22

Meanwhile, both parties shall maintain status quo regarding possession of the suit land measuring 41 kanals 18 marlas.

¶23

Nothing in this order shall affect the merits of the suit or the application for temporary injunction pending in the trial court.

¶24

( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE

¶25

August 05, 2010

¶26

monika

Sardool Singh v. Rattan Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sardool Singh v. Rattan Singh and Anr.

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

Jaswinder Singh and Ors. Vs Gurcharan Kaur and Ors.

Ram Kumar Vs Kultar Singh and Ors.

Kartar Singh & Ors. Vs Amarjeet Singh & Ors.

M/S Saraf Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Sps Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Dayakishan Vs Kunj Bihari Sharma and Ors.

Kulwant Singh and Ors. Vs Mohinder Singh and Ors.