Revision petition assailing interim injunction orders passed by Lower Courts. Petitioner challenged the grant infringing his possession rights. Single bench held no perversity found in trial or appellate courts exercising discretion under Order 39 CPC. Revision dismissed exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 227.
The revision petition 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.3179/2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No.3179/2011 Date of decision: 22.11.2011.
Ram Pal
....................Petitioner
v.
Surender Bakshi
.....................Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh
Present: Mr.Vikram Singh,Advocate for the petitioner.
Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral)
Defendant-petitioner has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the orders dated 21.5.2009(P1) and 4.4.2011 (P2) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)Ambala and Additional District Judge,Ambala respectively vide which the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the respondent-plaintiff was allowed by the trial court and affirmed in appeal by the appellate court.
In brief, respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner-defendant to restrain him from interfering into his peaceful possession over the suit property. It was alleged by the respondent-plaintiff that he is a resident of Village
CR No.3179/2011 2
Mullana Tehsil Barara,Distt.Ambala whereas defendant-petitioner is a resident of Village Nurud where the suit property is situated. It was further alleged by the plaintiff-respondent that vide an agreement dated 30.4.2003, defendant-petitioner gave his land measuring 66K-12 M situated in Village Nurud for cultivation and for planting popular trees and that in compliance of the said agreement the possession of the suit land was given to the plaintiff-respondent. It was further alleged by the plaintiff-respondent that after taking physical possession of the suit land, he made the whole land cultivable by levelling and making it even; got constructed water tanks and planted about 3200 poplar trees. It is also alleged that plaintiff-respondent spent about Rs.6 lacs in the entire process and that due to hard work and proper upkeep the poplar trees have grown rapidly and are ready to be cut. It is alleged that petitioner-defendant became greedy and started threatening the plaintiff-respondent to interfere in his possession and to cut and remove the trees. Alongwith the said suit the respondent-plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2.
Upon notice, petitioner-defendant filed reply and denied the existence of any agreement dated 30.4.2003 or giving the suit land for cultivation and for planting poplar trees. Instead, it was case of the defendant-petitioner that respondent-plaintiff had taken some other land of the petitioner-defendant for cultivation @ Rs.1,20,000/- per annum and that he was paid theka amount for two years only whereafter the respondent-plaintiff stopped to make payment of the
CR No.3179/2011 3
theka amount and left the possession of the said land and delivered the same to the defendant-petitioner. It was alleged that respondentplaintiff has fraudulently obtained the signatures of the petitionerdefendant on some blank papers the outcome of which was the alleged agreement dated 30.4.2003.
After hearing both sides the learned courts below accepted the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the respondentplaintiff. Hence the present revision petition.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant that the suit as well as injunction application filed by the respondent-plaintiff are totally false and frivolous and a result of fraud and both the courts below have illegally granted interim injunction in favour of the respondent-plaintiff.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant, I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders.
While accepting the injunction application it was found by the learned trial court that the plaintiff has prima facie shown an agreement having been executed between him and the defendant whereas the defendant has not been able to prima facie prove that it was a result of fraud as he never lodged a complaint in this regard. Further, while affirming the order in appeal, it has been found by the learned Addl. District Judge, Ambala that in his written statement defendant has not specifically denied his signatures on the agreement dated 30.4.2003 and has pleaded that he (petitioner-defendant) had given his some other
CR No.3179/2011 4
land to the plaintiff on theka vide agreement dated 23.2.2001. It has further been observed that possession of the suit property was to be seen at the time of filing of the suit and the title was not to be seen and prima facie, the possession of the land in question was with the plaintiff and in these circumstances the learned trial court has rightly allowed the injunction application.
In this view of the matter, I find no illegality or irregularity in the discretionary power exercised by the courts below warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Dismissed.
Nothing stated above, shall be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
22.11.2011 joshi
(Jaswant Singh) Ju dge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should intervene under Article 227 of the Constitution regarding the grant of interim injunction.
Whether the trial court's finding of prima facie possession and the lower appellate court's affirmation constitute perversity or illegality.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ram Pal
Jaswant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
