This High Court disposed of a civil revision challenging an appellate order reversing a permanent injunction. The court accepted parties' agreement to convert the interim status quo order into absolute and disposed of the matter without detailed findings.
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. 2735 of 2009
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 2735 of 2009 Date of decision: 18.08.2010
Rajbir Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
Ved Parkash and another
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL)
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.4.2009, passed by the learned lower appellate Court, vide which the appeal filed by defendant/respondents against the injunction order, passed by the learned trial Court stands allowed.
The plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant/respondents from interfering in the property in dispute, on the ground that the petitioner was in possession of the property under an agreement to sell, vide which on receipt of full and final sale consideration, the petitioner was put in possession. The petitioner was entitled to protect his possession.
The case of the petitioner further was, that the petitioner has a residential house on disputed land. In support of this, the petitioner placed on record the ration card as well as the documents showing sanction of electricity connection to the petitioner.
The learned trial Court, in view of the documents referred to
-2-
Civil Revision No. 2735 of 2009
above, held that prima facie case was made out in favour of the petitioner, and also held that the balance of convenience was in favour of the petitioner. He was likely to suffer irreparable loss and injury in case the injunction was not granted.
The learned lower appellate Court modified, the order in view of the dispute regarding documents on which reliance has been placed by the plaintiff/petitioner. The plaintiff/petitioner was not in possession of original agreement to sell or the original receipt. In view of the fact that the originals were not produced, and in the revenue record the possession of the defendant/respondents was shown, the learned lower appellate Court reversed the finding of the learned trial Court and dismissed the application moved by the plaintiff/petitioner.
This Court while issuing notice of motion on 14.5.2009 passed
the following order: -
“Notice of motion for 6.8.2009. Parties to maintain status quo till then.”
Both the parties claim to be in possession of the property. It is agreed between the parties, that this revision be disposed off by making the interim order as absolute.
Disposed off accordingly.
(Vinod K. Sharma) Judge
August 18, 2010 R.S.
Rajbir Singh
Ved Parkash
Vinod K. Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
