This revision petition challenging injunction orders in partition suit was dismissed as the lower courts' decisions suffered no infirmity.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.5458 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: 7th September, 2011
Ajay Kumar and others
… Petitioners
Versus
Balwant Singh
… Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. B.S. Tewatia, Advocate for the petitioners.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 21st April, 2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal and the order dated 6th June, 2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Additional District Judge, Palwal whereby order (Annexure P-1) was affirmed.
The respondent had instituted a suit for permanent injunction stating therein that he is owner in possession of the agricultural land total measuring 17 Kanals 6 Marlas to the extent of 186/346 share of the suit land, detail and description whereof was given in the plaint. The respondent-plaintiff had stated that he had purchased the property vide a registered sale deed dated 22nd July, 2005 and he was put in possession of the suit land. Whereas, the petitionerdefendant raised a plea that after registration of the sale deed
2
Civil Revision No.5458 of 2011 (O&M)
respondent-plaintiff became his co-sharer and they had instituted partition proceedings. As per the partition proceedings, respondentplaintiff was put in possession of some other portion of the entire land. The trial Court, considering the fact that the orders passed in partition proceedings were ex-parte, had granted injunction in favour of the respondent-plaintiff taking into account that as per the sale deed he is in possession of a specific portion of the land. This finding has been affirmed by the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court further held that it was within the knowledge of the petitioner-defendant that the respondent-plaintiff was a resident of Delhi, whereas Muniadi was carried in his village.
I have perused the orders passed by both the courts below. They suffer from no infirmity. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE
September 7, 2011 rps
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the orders of courts below in remaining grants of permanent injunction in partition proceedings.
Balwant Singh
Kanwalsingh Ahluwalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
