The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a civil revision petition challenging lower court orders granting temporary injunction in a suit between joint landowners regarding use of a tubewell and electric connection. The Court found no jurisdictional error.
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.
CR No.5884 of 2011
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CIVIL REVISION NO.5884 OF 2011 DATE OF DECISION: FABRUARY 13, 2012
Jagsir Singh
.... Petitioner
Versus
Gursewak Gir
.... Respondent
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL.
PRESENT: Mr. S. K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.
L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
Jagsir Singh-defendant has filed this revision petition petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 23.01.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moga and judgement dated 20.07.2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Moga.
Plaintiff-respondent Gursewak Gir and defendant-petitioner Jagsir Singh are both grand sons of Bachan Gir. Plaintiff's case is that he along with Pal Gir (defendant's father), Gurnam Gir and Balwant Gir are joint owners in joint possession of the land in question in which the disputed tubewell with electric connection has been installed. The tubewell was installed by all the cosharers but the electric connection was obtained in the name of defendant's father Pal Gir since deceased. Plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing the plaintiff from using ¼ share in the tubewell to irrigate the plaintiff's share of the joint land except in due course of law and from shifting, transferring or alienating the electric
CR No.5884 of 2011
-2-
connection in question. Temporary injunction to the same effect till disposal of the suit was sought by the respondent by moving application for this purpose.
Defendant-petitioner resisted the suit and the application and claimed to be exclusive owner in possession of the electric motor connection in question, which was admittedly installed in the name of his father.
Learned trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-1 allowed plaintiff's application for temporary injunction. Appeal preferred against the said order by the defendant has been dismissed by appellate Court vide impugned judgment Annexure P-2. Feeling aggrieved, instant revision petition has been preferred by the defendant.
I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
Plaintiff-respondent has relied on compromise agreement dated 21.07.2001 executed by all the cosharers including defendant's father Pal Gir regarding joint user of the tubewell and electric connection by all the cosharers. It is undisputed that there has been no formal partition of the land in question. Both the defendant and the plaintiff are joint owners thereof. Defendant, of course, alleged family partition but the land still stands joint in the revenue record. Counsel for the petitioner contended that agreement dated 21.07.2001 pleaded by plaintiff-respondent is a matter of evidence as also observed by the lower appellate Court. It is correct that the said agreement has to be proved during the course of trial of the suit by leading evidence. However, for the purpose of temporary injunction, prima facie case has to be seen in addition to balance of convenience and question of irreparable loss and injury. Both the courts below have found that plaintiff has made out all the three necessary ingredients for the grant of temporary injunction. For this purpose, the aforesaid agreement can certainly be looked into. In these circumstances, it
CR No.5884 of 2011
-3-
cannot be said that the impugned orders passed by the Courts below granting temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff-respondent are perverse or illegal or suffer from jurisdictional error. Temporary injunction has been rightly granted in favour of the plaintiff-respondent.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. However, nothing observed hereinbefore shall have any bearing on merits of the suit.
(L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE
13.02.2012 'raj'
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned orders granting temporary injunction were perverse, illegal or suffered from jurisdictional error.
Whether the material placed before the lower courts justified the grant of temporary injunction prima facie.
Jagsir Singh
Gursewak Gir
L. N. Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
