Allowed

Jai Bhagwan v. Attar Kala and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Sept 2013CR/3300/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana allowed a civil revision petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It set aside lower court orders granting a temporary injunction to a plaintiff who purchased property during an earlier pending suit, holding the plaintiff bound by the doctrine of lis pendens and insufficient to establish an injunction based on alleged fraud by the original v

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders granting temporary injunction were set aside, and the application for temporary injunction was dismissed.

Jai Bhagwan Vs Attar Kala and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 3300 of 2011

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No. 3300 of 2011 Date of decision : September 09, 2013

Jai Bhagwan Singh

....Petitioner

versus

Attar Kala and others

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal

¶11

Present : Mr. ND Achint, Advocate, for the petitioner

¶12

Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for respondent no. 1

¶13

L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)

¶14

Defendant no. 1 has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 6.5.2010 passed by the trial court and judgment dated 28.4.2011 passed by the lower appellate court thereby allowing application filed by respondent no. 1-plaintiff for temporary injunction and thereby restraining the defendants (petitioner and proforma respondents no. 2 and 3) from alienating suit land till decision of the suit.

¶15

Petitioner had filed an earlier suit against respondents no. 2 and

¶16

Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.09.11 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. High Court, Chandigarh

¶17

Civil Revision No. 3300 of 2011

¶18

-2-

¶19

During pendency of the said suit, plaintiff-respondent no. 1 purchased suit land from respondents no. 2 and 3. The said suit was decreed ex-parte in favour of the present petitioner. Respondent no. 1 plaintiff by filing the instant suit has challenged the said decree on the basis of alleged fraud.

¶20

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Counsel for the petitioner contended that sale in favour of respondent no. 1-plaintiff by respondents no. 2 and 3 is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens having been made during pendency of the earlier suit. There is considerable merit in the contention. The earlier suit stands decreed against respondents no. 2 and 3 in favour of petitioner. Respondent no. 1- plaintiff is purchaser pendente lite from respondents no. 2 and 3 and is, therefore, also bound by the decree passed in the earlier suit in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, the plaintiff has no prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction. Neither she will suffer any loss or injury much less irreparable one nor balance of convenience is in her favour because by grant of temporary injunction in this suit, the petitioner stands deprived of the fruits of decree passed in earlier suit.

¶21

Contention of counsel for respondent no. 1-plaintiff that earlier decree can be challenged on the ground of fraud does not help the plaintiff at this stage. Suffice to observe that present petitioner did not commit any fraud with respondent no. 1 and if any fraud was committed, the same might

¶22

Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.09.11 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. High Court, Chandigarh

¶23

Civil Revision No. 3300 of 2011

¶24

-3-

¶25

be by respondent nos. 2 and 3 as vendors and predecessors-in-interest of respondent no. 1 by not disclosing pendency of the earlier suit filed by the petitioner. Consequently, alleged fraud cannot be said to have been committed by the petitioner.

¶26

For the reasons aforesaid, I find that respondent no. 1-plaintiff has failed to make out necessary ingredients for grant of temporary injunction. Orders of the courts below granting temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff, therefore, suffer from illegality and jurisdictional error. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned orders passed by both the courts below are set aside. Application filed by the plaintiff for temporary injunction stands dismissed. Nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the suit.

¶27

Civil miscellaneous application, if any pending, is disposed of

¶28

as having been rendered infructuous.

¶29

( L.N. Mittal ) September 09, 2013 Judge 'dalbir'

¶30

Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.09.11 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. High Court, Chandigarh

Jai Bhagwan v. Attar Kala and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Bhagwan v. Attar Kala and Ors.

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

Balbir Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Jagmel Singh and Ors. Vs Waryam Singh and Ors.

Bharpur Kaur Vs Karamjit Singh and Others

Anil Kumar Puri Vs Hari Krishan Kakkar

Municipal Corporation (Council), Thanesar Vs Ravi Gupta

Kulwant Singh etc. Vs Dalip Kaur and Ors.