Revision petition filed against an order directing parties to maintain status quo regarding possession of suit property. The court found no ground to interfere and dismissed the petition.
Revision petition dismissed against order directing parties to maintain status quo regarding possession of suit property.
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.
Civil Revision No. 6080 of 2008 --1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 6080 of 2008 Date of decision. 19.09.2011
M/S S.S. Bindra Engineering Works and another .... Petitioners
Versus
Satish Kumar and others ...... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr. A.K. Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Shilpa Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Sumit Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sham Lal, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2.
Vijender Singh Malik, J.
This is a revision-petition brought by defendants no. 7 and 8 under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 16.11.2007 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ludhiana, vide which the petitioners have been restrained from raising any construction on the land held by them by way of exclusive possession. The case of Satish Kumar and others, plaintiffs-respondents is as under:-
Civil Revision No. 6080 of 2008 --2--
The plaintiffs are owners of land measuring 18 kanals detailed in the plaint as well as in the application moved under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure situated in village Budhewal, Hadbast No.187, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. They purchased the same from defendants no. 1 to 6 vide sale deed dated 03.06.2003. Defendants no. 1 to 6 had further agreed to sell land measuring 16 kanals vide agreement dated 03.06.2003 to the plaintiffs and received an advance of Rs.2,00,000/-. They also received further advance in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on 19.06.2003 and executed a receipt thereof. The land agreed to be sold is with reference to specific portion out of khasra numbers mentioned in the agreement for which boundaries are also mentioned. Defendants no. 1 to 6 did not come forward to execute the sale deed. The plaintiffs came to know that respondent no.7 purchased land measuring 7 kanals 19 marlas from respondents no. 1 to 4 vide sale deed dated 13.01.2004 and defendant no.8 purchased land from the same defendants measuring 7 kanals 19 marlas vide sale deed dated 13.01.2004. Now the defendants have joined hands to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs. Defendants no. 1 to 6 had agreed to sell specific portion of their land to the plaintiffs. Defendants no.1 to 4 in connivance with defendants no. 5 to 8 are intending to hand over possession to respondents no.7 and 8 of the land, which is subject matter of the agreement to sell dated 3.6.2003. They have also collected building material to encroach upon the said land. Irreparable injury is claimed to be caused to the plaintiffs if possession
Civil Revision No. 6080 of 2008 --3--
of the land was delivered to defendants no. 7 and 8 because the plaintiffs agreed to purchase the land with a planning to set up an industrial unit therein.
To the application filed by the plaintiffs for ad-interim injunction under the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is submitted by defendants no.1 to 6 in their reply that the application is not maintainable because the plaintiffs-applicants are not in possession of the suit land. It is, however, admitted that the plaintiffs had purchased 18 kanals of land out of the property in question and they are in possession thereof. It is asserted that though boundaries were given in the sale deed but the land was sold out of the joint khata. The agreement to sell for 16 kanals of land is claimed to be a result of fraud and misrepresentation.
Defendants no.7 and 8 filed reply to the application claiming that they are in possession of the property in dispute on the basis of two sale deeds dated 13.01.2004 and that possession had already been handed over to them. They denied execution of any agreement to sell in favour of the applicants by the other defendants.
Learned trial court heard learned counsel for the parties and allowed the application restraining defendants no.1 to 6 from delivering possession of the land measuring 16 kanals comprised in khasra nos. 65//1/2, 2/1/2/, 9/2/2/, 10/.1/2/, 64//4, 5,6,7, Khewat/Khatauni Nos.122/152, 160/213 as per jamabandi for the year 1998-99 situated in village Budhewal Hadbast no.187, Tehsil and District Ludhiana.
Civil Revision No. 6080 of 2008 --4--
Defendants no.7 & 8 filed an appeal, heard by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Tract Court, Ludhiana, who has decided the same vide judgment dated 16.11.2007. Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ludhiana has directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession of the suit land till disposal of the suit.
Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, defendants no. 7 and 8 have brought this revision-petition.
I have heard Mr A.K. Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Ms.Shilpa Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Sumit Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sham Lal, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2, and have gone through the record.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the agreement to sell set up by Satish Kumar executed in his favour by defendants no.1 to 6 is dated 3.6.2003 in respect of 16 kanals of land. According to him, petitioner no.1 purchased 7 kanals 19 marlas of land vide registered sale deed dated 13.1.2004. He has submitted that vide sale deed of the same date, petitioner no.2 also purchased 7 kanals 19 marlas of land. He has submitted that although possession of the land purchased was given to the petitioners on the date of execution and registration of the sale deed, yet taking it otherwise, there is an admission of the respondents in their application filed for modifying the interim order made on an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure that possession of the land sold to the petitioners no.1 and 2 had been delivered to them on 16.7.2004.
Civil Revision No. 6080 of 2008 --5--
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners drew my attention in this regard to the copy of order of learned Additional District Judge, (Fast Tract Court), Ludhiana at page 41 of the paper book where the factum of delivery of possession on 16.07.2004 is noticed by learned court from the application of the respondents.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that although the petitioners claim themselves to be in possession of the suit land from 13.01.2004 when the sale deeds in respect thereof had been executed and registered in their favour, yet taking it to be a case of delivery of possession of the said land to the petitioners on 16.7.2004, they are co-sharers in possession of the land in question and their possession over the same cannot be disturbed. He has submitted that the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners have not been questioned and he has submitted that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers of the land in question. He has submitted that with the finding that the petitioners are in possession of the land sold to them vide sale deeds dated 13.1.2004, learned Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court), Ludhiana had committed grave error in ordering the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession of the suit property. According to him, the petitioners have a prima-facie case in their favour and the balance of convenience is also in their favour.
On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the respondents has submitted that the suit was filed on 31.5.2004 and ex-
Civil Revision No. 6080 of 2008 --6--
parte injunction order was made against delivery of possession on the same date. According to him, on 16.7.2004, when the defendants came to the spot and delivered possession of the suit land to the petitioners, the injunction order was operative. He has submitted that the application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure filed against them is still pending in which restoration of the possession could be ordered. He has submitted that the property in question is joint and specific khasra numbers could not be sold. Contrary to what is claimed in the petition by the petitioners, the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court), Ludhiana, does not restrain the petitioners from raising any construction over the land in question. The order is simply directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession of the suit property.
Whether the possession of the suit property would be restored or not in the application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, it would not affect the merits of the order under revision. The fact remains that possession of the petitioners is there on the suit land at least from 16.7.2004. They are moreover co-sharers in the land in question and if they are in exclusive possession of some specific portion of the joint land, their possession cannot be disturbed. I however, fail to find any grievance of the petitioners against the impugned order. Vide the impugned order, learned Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court), Ludhiana has directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession over the suit property. I could not find
Civil Revision No. 6080 of 2008 --7--
as to how it restrains the petitioners in any manner from enjoying possession of the suit property. I fail to find any patent illegality in the impugned order in the absence of which the order passed by learned Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court), Ludhiana in an appeal against the order passed on the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, cannot be interfered with.
In these circumstances, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ludhiana dated 16.11.2007. The revision petition is, consequently, dismissed.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE
19.09.2011 dinesh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether High Court can interfere with impugned order directing parties to maintain status quo regarding possession of suit property under Article 227.
Whether impugned order restrains petitioners from enjoying possession of the suit property.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s S.S. Bindra Engineering Works
Second Petitioner
Satish Kumar
Other Respondents
Vijender Singh Malik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
