Dismissed

Shangara Singh v. Mangal Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Feb 2011CR/548/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petition under Article 227 was filed to challenge a civil court order granting interim injunction in a possession suit. The petitioners argued that a related second appeal was pending. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the lower courts did not err in exercising discretion.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed, confirming the interim injunction granted to the plaintiffs-respondents.

Shangara Singh Vs Mangal Singh and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

#1#

¶2

C.R.No.548 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.R.No.548 of 2011

¶5

Date of decision: 08.2.2011

Shangara Singh

….Petitioner

Vs.

Mangal Singh and others

¶10

….Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. G.S. Sirphikhi, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Jaswant Singh, J

¶13

Petitioner-Shangara Singh has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the impugned order dated 21.5.2008 (P.2) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Batala and order dated 23.10.2010 (P.3) passed by learned Additional District Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur vide which the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC for interim injunction filed by the plaintiffsrespondents No.1 to 4 has been allowed.

¶14

Plaintiff-Respondent No.1 along with his wife Smt Gurmit Kaur filed a Civil Suit No.384 of 4.10.2007 against the petitioner and proforma respondent Nos.5 to 7 for permanent injunction restraining them interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs or from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the land described in head note of the plaint measuring 19 kanal 7 marla as per the jamabandi for the year 2002-03. During the pendency of the civil suit, Smt Gurmit Kaur died and her legal representatives-respondent Nos.2 to 4 were brought on record. Along with

¶15

C.R.No.548 of 2011 #2#

¶16

the civil suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC for interim injunction was also filed. Notice of the suit as well as application was given to the defendants but defendant Nos.2 to 4 did not appear despite service , hence they were proceeded ex parte. Defendant No.1-petitioner appeared and resisted the claim made in the civil suit as well as in the stay application by taking preliminary objections inter alia that plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit. On merits, it was submitted that the plaintiffs are neither owners nor in possession of the suit land and in fact originally the suit land was owned and possessed by one Ajaib Singh. It was further submitted that said Ajaib Singh expired in the year 1989 and defendant No.1-petitioner along with his brother Charan Singh has inherited the estate of deceased Ajaib Singh in equal share being his real brothers and the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest in the suit land.

¶17

After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and after perusal of the revenue record of the case, learned trial Court came to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case as well as balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants-petitioner and allowed the application for interim injunction and consequently defendants including the present petitioner were restrained from interfering or dispossessing the plaintiffs from the land in dispute illegally and forcibly except in due course of law till the final disposal of the suit vide order dated 21.5.2008 (P.2).

¶18

Aggrieved against the order dated 21.5.2008, the defendantpetitioner filed an appeal and the same was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge (Ad hoc) Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur vide judgment dated 23.10.2010 (P.3). Hence, the present petition under Article

¶19

#3#

¶20

C.R.No.548 of 2011

¶21

227 of the Constitution is filed by the defendant-petitioner.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. It is argued that the order passed by both the courts below are illegal, suffering from material irregularities and are not sustainable in the eyes of law while allowing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC filed by the plaintiffs. It is further submitted that RSA No.3250 of 2007 regarding the land in dispute is still pending and has not attained finality. It is further argued that in view of Order 7 Rule 1 Clause (j) of the Civil Procedure Code, it was obligatory upon the plaintiffs to make a statement in the plaint that no suit between the parties has previously been instituted or finally decided by a court of competent jurisdiction.

¶23

A perusal of judgment and decree dated 20.3.2001 (P.1) reveals that on earlier occasion, a civil suit No.166 of 29.5.1996 for declaration was filed by the petitioner-defendant No.1 against the plaintiffs-respondents No.1 to 4 herein along with one Charan Singh and one Smt Manso but the same was dismissed and an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20.3.2001 (P.1) was also dismissed by learned District Judge, Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 20.3.2007. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by both the courts, a regular second appeal No.3250 of 2007 was filed and the same stands admitted on 6.8.2009 and is pending in this court and counsel for both the parties have agreed that there is no interim order passed by this Court in RSA No.3250 of 2007. It is necessary to mention here that the land in dispute in both the suits is one and the same, however, the relief claimed is entirely different. In the earlier suit filed by the petitioner, a declaration was prayed to the effect that he (petitioner) along with one Charan Singh is the owner in possession of the

¶24

C.R.No.548 of 2011 #4#

¶25

land in dispute measuring 19 kanal 7 marla and Mangal Singh and his wife Gurmit Kaur-respondents have no right, title and interest in the suit property as they have purchased the suit land by way of sale deed dated 10.5.1985 from one Manso, who is claiming herself to be the legally wedded wife of deceased Ajaib Singh; but as discussed above the civil suit was dismissed and RSA is still pending. However, in the present case, the plaintiffsrespondents are claiming that they have purchased the suit land from said Manso by way of sale deed referred above and mutation was sanctioned in their favour and they have been shown in the revenue record to be owner in possession of the suit land and the defendant has no right to interfere in their peaceful possession.

¶26

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, both the courts below have rightly exercised the discretion while granting the benefit of interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents and does not warrant any interference while exercising powers under Article 227

¶27

of the Constitution.

¶28

Dismissed.

¶29

February 08, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE

Shangara Singh v. Mangal Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shangara Singh v. Mangal Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munshi Ram & Ors. Vs Pseb Patiala & Ors.

Kehar Singh & Ors. Vs Gram Panchayat

Manjeet @ Nakta Vs State of Haryana

Jai Parkash Vs Krishan Mohan F.C. & Anr.

M/S Enco Engineers Combine Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Bhupendra Steel Pvt.Ltd

Jagjit Singh Vs Mahabir and Others