This single-paragraph judgment declined the petitioner's appeal against an order refusing interim injunction. The Court held that parties were in settled possession per Jamabandi/Khasra Girdawari, making the lower court's discretion unassailable.
Petitioner's prayer for interim injunction was rejected; petition dismissed with no ground to interfere.
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.5834 of 2009 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.5834 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on : 27-09-2010
Dalgir Kaur
....Petitioner
VERSUS
Resham Singh and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:Mr.R.S.Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate for respondents
MAHESH GROVER, J
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.9.2009 by which the interim injunction prayed for by the petitioner has been declined.
The case of the petitioner is that the the property has not been partitioned and is joint between the parties and therefore the prayer of the petitioner that the respondents be restrained from cutting trees should have been allowed.
On other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the parties are in settled possession of the land which is reflected from the jamabandi and also Khasra Girdawari and which fact has been rightly appreciated by the Courts below to decline the prayer of the petitioner.
He further contends that petitioner herself has removed the trees planted on her land and when respondents are interested in removing
CR No.5834 of 2009 (O&M)
2
the trees on their land, the suit has been filed with the above-stated prayer.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record.
Prima facie it appears that the parties are in their settled possession of their respective shares since a long time, though formal partition may or may not have been effected. Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari also reflect that the parties are in their settled possession. Having regard to the aforesaid fact that once the parties are in their settled possession, the discretion exercised by the Court below declining the prayer of the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 cannot be faulted with as it has done so judiciously.
No ground to interfere.
Dismissed.
September 27, 2010 rekha
(Mahesh Grover) Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the learned Courts below erred in exercising discretion to decline the petitioner's prayer for interim injunction restraining respondents from cutting trees.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dalgir Kaur
Resham Singh and others
Mahesh Grover
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
