The court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an interim injunction application. The petitioner failed to disclose a pending identical suit filed by his father. The court held that this concealment rightfully precluded the grant of interim relief.
The petition was dismissed. No interim injunction was granted.
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. 1754 of 2012
(1)
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 1754 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision :20.3.2012
Gurmeet Singh
..... Petitioner
vs
Kulwinder Singh and others
..... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Rajesh Bindal J.
Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 4.10.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malerkotla, vide which the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC was dismissed and order dated 19.12.2011 vide which his appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur.
Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents/ defendants from dispossessing him from the suit land. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner/plaintiff filed application for interim injunction which was dismissed by the learned trial court vide order dated 4.10.2011 considering the facts that the father of the petitioner/plaintiff earlier also filed a suit against the father and uncles of the defendants for the same relief, which is still pending. The petitioner has not disclosed this fact before the court below. In appeal filed by the petitioner, the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, upheld the order dated 4.10.2011 vide order dated 19.12.2011.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the courts below have wrongly concluded that the petitioner had not come to the court with clean hands as he has not disclosed about the pendency of the
Civil Revision No. 1754 of 2012
(2)
earlier suit. It was submitted that respondents/ defendants are not the cosharers and have no concern with the land in dispute. In case the injunction is not granted in favour of the petitioner and the respondents/ defendants succeed to get the possession of the suit property forcibly and illegally, he would suffer irreparable loss. The prayer is for setting aside the orders of both the courts below and grant of interim injunction in favour of the petitioner.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the property in question in the present suit and in the suit filed by his father is the same and that he had not disclosed this fact before the courts below. In the application filed by father of the petitioner/plaintiff, the court below has not granted injunction. The said suit is pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malerkotla. The petitioner has the knowledge of the aforesaid facts but he intentionally did not disclose the same before the court below, which has rightly dismissed the application for interim injunction.
Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, no illegality has been committed by the learned courts below in rejecting the application of the petitioner for interim injunction.
The petition is dismissed.
20.3.2012 vs.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the initiation of this proceeding and the filing of an identical suit by the petitioner's father without disclosure vitiates the court's discretion to grant interim injunction.
Whether the trial courts had committed illegality in discharging the application for interim injunction based on the lack of clean hands.
Whether the petitioner is disentitled from relief due to concealment of a pending identical suit by his father.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gurmeet Singh
Kulwinder Singh
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
