Disposed

Angrej Kaur and Ors. v. Darshan Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Nov 2011CR/7116/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Punjab & Haryana observed procedural lapses in partition proceedings where a suit was restored without notice to plaintiffs. The petitioner sought reporting consideration, and the court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the trial court to conclude the trial within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Angrej Kaur and Ors. Vs Darshan Singh and Ors. — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

[ 1 ]

¶2

C.R. No. 7116 of 2009

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.R. No. 7116 of 2009 Date of Decision: November 4, 2011

¶5

Angrej Kaur and others ............................... Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Darshan Singh and others......................... Respondents

¶8

Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri

¶9

1.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶10

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶11

Present: Mr. Dilraj Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the respondents.

¶13

RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral)

¶14

Petitioners and respondents are co-sharers of the suit land. Plaintiff No.1 had 4/9 share in the suit land and was in possession thereof after the partition has been effected. Respondents No. 1 to 6 filed an application for partition which was dismissed on 28.9.2005. The suit was dismissed vide order dated 15.2.2006. No notice was given to the plaintiff before restoring the suit. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and on an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC the respondents were restrained from making any change in the factum of possession of the land measuring 26 kanal 13 marlas without prior permission

¶15

C.R. No. 7116 of 2009 [ 2 ]

¶16

of the Court. This order was passed on 10.6.2009 (Annexure P1). On appeal, the learned District Judge vide its judgment dated 24.9.2009 (Annexure P-2) modified the order dated 10.6.2009 to the extent that the present petitioners and respondents No. 4 and 5 were restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 to 3 on the basis of the order passed in partition proceedings. The Revenue Authorities could pass fresh orders after giving notice of the partition proceedings.

¶17

Darshan Singh-plaintiff has already sold 130 kanals i.e. more than his share. The plaintiffs-respondents No. 2 and 3 have become co-sharers by virtue of the sale-deed dated 16.1.2009.

¶18

The above factual position has not been disputed by both the counsels present in Court. The partition proceedings were dismissed on 28.9.2005 and thereafter without notice to the plaintiffs the proceedings were restored.

¶19

Keeping in view this fact, the Civil Revision is being disposed of by giving a direction to the trial Court to conclude the trial within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶20

4.11.2011 Rupi

¶21

( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE

Angrej Kaur and Ors. v. Darshan Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Angrej Kaur and Ors. v. Darshan Singh 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

State Bank of India Vs Amandeep Chopra and Anr.

Surjeet Kaur Vs Ram Singh

Sham Sunder & Ors. Vs Ravinder Nath Sharma

Shyam Lal Vs Bimla Devi & Ors.

Jaspal Singh and Anr. Vs SBI and Anr.

Gian Singh and Ors. Vs Nirmal Singh and Ors.