Single judge dismissed revision petition challenging dismissal of temporary injunction application. Court held no prima facie case to establish property was HUF property warranting injunction.
No merit; application for injunction 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.
C . R. No. 5640 of 2010
- 1-
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
C . R. No. 5640 of 2010 Date of Decision : 15.09.2010
Shiv Kumar Goyal
.......... Petitioner
Versus
Jai Kumar Goyal & others
...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Present : Mr. V,K, Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J.K. Bhatti, Advocate for the petitioner.
VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the orders dated 14.8.2008 and 5.4.2010, passed by the learned Courts below, vide which the application moved under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking injunction against defendant / respondents from alienating or changing the nature of the disputed property was dismissed.
The plaintiff / petitioner filed a suit to challenge the sale deed in favour of the defendant / respondents on the ground, that the property sold was HUF Hindu Coparcenary property, as it was purchased by the vendor Smt. Bhagwanti Devi from the funds of HUF.
- 2-
C . R. No. 5640 of 2010
It is yet to be determined, as to whether the property was HUF giving any right to file petition to challenge the sale, or individual property of Smt. Bhagwanti Devi as claimed by her.
There is, thus, no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner to claim injunction against the registered owner from using the property as desired.
The learned Courts below rightly dismissed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure by holding that the petitioner had no prima facie case to seek relief of injunction.
No merit.
Dismissed.
15.09.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has a prima facie case to claim an injunction against the registered owner regarding disputed property.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shiv Kumar Goyal
Jai Kumar Goyal
Vinod K. Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
