This order dismisses two revision petitions challenging interlocutory orders under Order 39 CPC. The Court held the orders were judiciously exercised to keep disputed property intact pending a recovery suit.
Revisions dismissed with no legal infirmity found in the impugned orders.
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.
CR No.1404 of 2010 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.1404 of 2010 (O&M)
Bhupinder Kaur and others
....Petitioners
VERSUS
Pawan Batra and others
....Respondents
CR No.2942 of 2010 (O&M)
Pawan Batra and others
....Petitioners
VERSUS
Bhupinder Kaur and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:Mr.Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners in CR No.1404 of 2010.
Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate for petitioners in CR No. 2942 of 2010 and for respondents in CR No. 1404 of 2010
Decided on: 27.9.2010
MAHESH GROVER, J
This order will dispose of two revision petitions bearing nos. 1404 of 2010 and 2942 of 2010.
There is no legal infirmity in the impugned orders.
The power of the Court under Order 39 Rules 1 &2 CPC has
been judiciously exercised keeping in view the fact that the property in dispute has not been partitioned and respondents have filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2 crores against the petitioners. In such an eventuality, it
CR No.1404 of 2010 (O&M) 2
would be just and proper if the property is kept intact as directed by the Civil Court in order to safeguard the interest of the litigating parties. It is always expected that the Trial Court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible.
In the absence of any error in jurisdiction, the revisions are
without merit and hence dismissed.
September 27, 2010 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there is any legal infirmity or error in jurisdiction in the impugned interlocutory orders restricting the property.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bhupinder Kaur
Pawan Batra
Mahesh Grover
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
