The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the revision petition challenging lower court orders granting an injunction in a suit for permanent injunction. The Court held that revenue records showed exclusive possession in favor of the plaintiffs, providing no ground for interference.
The revision petition stands dismissed.
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.679 of 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.679 of 2012 Date of decision 1.02.2012.
Bijender & others
...... Petitioners.
versus
Sajjan & others
.. .... Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C. PURI
Present : Mr. Proveen Hans, Advocate for the petitioner.
K.C.PURI. J.
Challenge in this revision petition are the orders dated 20.9.2011 passed by Shri Satish Kumar Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hansi vide which the application preferred by the plaintiff for injunction was accepted and also the order dated 4.11.2011 passed by Shri Pardeep Kumar, Additional District Judge, Hisar vide which the appeal preferred by the defendant against the order dated 20.9.2011, was dismissed.
Civil Revision No.679 of 2012
2
Learned counsel for the defendants/revisionist has submitted that Nehri Girdwari are in the names of the petitioners. The petitioners are in possession of the suit property. So, the trial Court should have ordered the parties to maintain status quo rather than granting injunction.
I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission.
The plaintiffs have been shown in exclusive possession of the suit property as per revenue record. Nehri Khasra girdwari has little value to evaluate the factum of possession.
Since both the Courts below have passed the impugned order on the basis of revenue record and as such no ground for interference in the revision petition is made out.
Consequently, the revision petition stands dismissed.
A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict
compliance.
February 1 , 2012 sv
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order of injunction granting by subordinate courts based on exclusive possession under revenue records.
Bijender & others
Sajjan & others
K.C. PURI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
