Dismissed

Dariya v. Balwan and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Jan 2010CR/7605/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision, the Punjab and Haryana High Court declined to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to interfere with lower courts' refusal of a temporary injunction. The decision was based on the absence of documentary evidence for the petitioner's ownership claim and non-disclosure of earlier litigation.

What did the court decide?

The petition for revision, the application for stay pending the revision, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are dismissed.

Dariya Vs Balwan and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

Civil Revision No. 7605 of 2009(O&M

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No. 7605 of 2009(O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision: January 13, 2010

¶6

Dariya

¶7

...... Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Balwan and others

¶10

...... Respondents

¶11

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari

¶12

Present: Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

¶14

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶15

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶16

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶17

Ajay Tewari, J.

¶18

This petition has been filed against concurrent orders of the Courts below declining temporary injunction to the petitioner in respect of disputed property measuring 150 square yards.

¶19

The case of the petitioner was that the land was owned and possessed by his ancestors more than100 years ago. Subsequently though the land was shown as having been come in the abadi yet the possession continued with the family of the petitioner. Further pleaded that he was using the plot for tethering cattle.

¶20

Both the courts came to the conclusion that there was no documentary evidence showing the ownership of the petitioner over the land in dispute. Even though no documentary evidence was available with

¶21

¶22

Civil Revision No. 7605 of 2009(O&M

¶23

the respondents in support of their claim that it was part of the Harijan Chaupal, yet the courts below held that it was for the petitioner to clearly establish his claim being plaintiff. The courts below also held that the petitioner had not disclosed the fact of earlier litigation in the present suit. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has clearly mentioned in his plaint that he had earlier filed a suit which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action. However, he is not in a position to refute the fact that it was not mentioned in the plaint that earlier similar application for temporary injunction had been declined and even appeal against the said order had been dismissed.

¶24

Keeping in mind the entire conspectus of the facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case I do not find it a fit case to exercise discretion of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the findings of the Courts below.

¶25

Consequently this revision and the application for stay as well are dismissed.

¶26

Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶27

(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE

¶28

January 13 , 2010 sunita

Dariya v. Balwan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dariya v. Balwan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakshmi Chand and Others Vs Ganga Devi and Others

Botil Tools India Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Atlas Engg. Industries Pvt.Ltd.

Nanak Chand Vs Shakal Panchayat Dharmashala and Ors.

Kirpal Singh and Anr. Vs Virender Singh

Dilbagh Singh Vs Milkha Singh and Ors.

Sushil Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.