Dismissed

Ramphal v. Sat Narain

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Mar 2012CR/1772/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision, the High Court dismissed the petition challenging the first appellate court's acceptance of an appeal to allow an injunction. The revisionist argued the trial court ignored a Local Commissioner's report. The Single Judge found no illegality and dismissed the revision, remitting fact-finding on possession to the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision No.1772 of 2012 is dismissed.

Ramphal Vs Sat Narain — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Revision No.1772 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No.1772 of 2012 Date of decision 21 .03.2012.

¶5

Ramphal

¶6

...... Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

Sat Narain

¶9

.. .... Respondent.

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C. PURI

¶11

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

Present : Mr. S.S.Duhan, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶15

K.C.PURI. J.

¶16

Challenge in this revision petition is the order dated 9.2.2012 passed by R.N.Bharti, learned Additional District Judge, Jind vide which the appeal preferred by the defendants against the order dated 20.9.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jind was accepted.

¶17

Briefly stated Sat Narain filed suit for permanent injunction restraining defendant from dispossessing him from the suit property by force other than due process of law.

¶18

The case of the plaintiff is that defendant on 24.3.2006

¶19

Civil Revision No.1772 of 2012

¶20

¶21

executed a registered lease deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property which was valid for a period from 1.5.2006 to 30.4.2016. The plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and the defendants are now threatening to dispossess the plaintiff from his legal possession over the suit land.

¶22

The said suit was resisted by the defendant and it has been pleaded that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff has sown eucalyptus trees which have been cut by him. The land was given for the purposes of fishery and the same has not been used for that purpose. The plaintiff has surrendered the possession.

¶23

Along with suit, an application under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed, which was resisted.

¶24

The trial Court, after hearing both the sides and have gone through the report of the Local Commissioner, dismissed the application for injunction vide order dated 18.7.2011. The plaintiff, now respondent filed an appeal. The said appeal was accepted by Shri R.N.Bharti, Additional District Judge, Jind vide order dated 9.2.2012.

¶25

Feeling dissatisfied with the order dated 9.2.2012, the present revision petition has been preferred.

¶26

Learned counsel for the defendant/respondent has submitted that Local Commissioner has found the defendant/respondent in possession of the suit property. The trial Court has simply ignored the report on the

¶27

Civil Revision No.1772 of 2012

¶28

¶29

ground that the spot was inspected on 13.7.2011 whereas Local Commissioner has issued notice for 14.7.2011. It is submitted that no injunction can be granted since the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property.

¶30

I have carefully considered the said submissions but do not find any force in that submission.

¶31

Admittedly, the suit land was given on lease by the plaintiff to the defendant through a registered lease deed for a period of ten years which period will elapse in the year 2016. That period has not elapsed. There is no document on the file to prove the fact that plaintiff has surrendered the possession in favour of defendant. The oral assertion regarding surrendering the possession cannot be accepted. The Local Commissioner cannot be appointed for the purposes of determining the possession. The parties have to produce the evidence to prove their respective possession. So, in these circumstances, I see no illegality committed by the First Appellate Court in allowing the injunction application.

¶32

Consequently, the revision is without any merit and the same stands dismissed.

¶33

However, it is made clear that any observations made by this Court or by the First Appellate Court shall not construe as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The trial Court shall independently decide the factum of possession according to the evidence available on the file.

¶34

Civil Revision No.1772 of 2012

¶35

¶36

A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.

¶37

( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE

¶38

March 21, 2012 sv

Ramphal v. Sat Narain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramphal v. Sat Narain

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

Prem Nath Khanna and Anr. Vs Asha Khanna and Ors.

Santa Singh Vs Harbans Singh and Ors.

Seema Anand Vs Chanchal Arora

Amitabh Bhushan Vs Sheetal Bhushan

Khattu Ram Vs Charan Dass and Another

Randhir Kumar Alias Randhir Singh Vs Ram Avtar and Ors.