Petitioners filed a revision challenging an order granting status quo in a property dispute. The Single Judge held that the existence of the disputed land is a question of fact for the main suit and dismissed the revision.
The revision petition against the order maintaining status quo regarding possession and construction was dismissed.
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.454 of 2010 Date of decision: 25.1.2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Smt. Kamlesh Kumari & ors.
......Petitioners
Versus
Smt.Kamlesh Kumari
......Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr. Pankaj Middha, Advocate for the petitioners.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral)
This is defendants' revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 17.12.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Panipat whereby the parties have been directed to maintain status quo with regard to possession and construction over the property in dispute during the pendency of the suit.
Counsel for the petitioners has raised grievance to the grant of status quo with regard to raising the construction. It has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury, if they are not allowed to raise the construction during the pendency of this petition. No such argument was raised by the petitioners before the Lower Appellate Court when the impugned order was passed.
From the averments made, the dispute raised before the Court below, “as to whether or not the suit plot forms part of Khasra Nos.3507 and 3508”, is a disputed question of fact which can be decided after the parties adduce their evidence in the main suit.
In view of the allegations and counter allegations, the Lower Appellate Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo in exercise
CR No.454 of 2010
-2-
of its jurisdiction of granting discretionary relief. I find no error in exercise of
such jurisdiction.
Dismissed.
January 25, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the grant of status quo regarding possession and construction during the pendency of the suit was erroneous.
Whether the petitioner suffered irreparable loss if not allowed to raise construction during the suit.
Whether the undisputed allegations regarding land form a question of fact decidable only after evidence in the main suit.
Smt. Kamlesh Kumari & ors.
Smt. Kamlesh Kumari
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
