Dismissed

Karambir Singh v. Jaibir & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Oct 2013CR/3601/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the dismissal of a revision against an order refusing appointment of a receiver under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC regarding machinery possession. The Court held that since the sale was admitted and the forgery issue required trial, there was no scope for receiver appointment; impugned orders confirmed.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; orders below confirmed.

Karambir Singh Vs Jaibir & Ors. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

-1-

¶2

C.R. No.3601 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.R. No.3601 of 2012 Date of Decision.21.10.2013

¶5

Karambir Singh son of Shri Bansi Lal

¶6

.......Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Jaibir son of Shri Tej Ram and others

¶9

......Respondents

¶10

Present: Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Anand Kumar Bishnoi, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶12

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶13

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶14

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶15

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

¶17

K. KANNAN J. (ORAL)

¶18

The revision is against the order dismissing the petition under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC for securing the safe custody of the machinery which had been in possession of the respondent-plaintiff. Admittedly, there had been a relief of injunction granted in his favour as a purchaser from the defendant-petitioner before this Court. The petitioner's contention was that although there had been a sale of JCB machine on 25.06.2009, the entire consideration as required to be paid had not been paid to him but the plaintiff is relying on some forged receipts as though amount had been paid to the defendant. The defendant relied on a FIR said to have been registered against the plaintiff and a report obtained from the FSL that receipts relied on by the plaintiff were not genuine.

¶19

Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2013.10.25 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

C.R. No.3601 of 2012 -2-

¶21

While rejecting the petition filed under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC, the Court has considered the fact that the plaintiff had obtained relief of injunction. If the defendant had not been paid in full, the remedy for the defendant would be only to obtain the balance of consideration and sue for damages if the plaintiff had committed any fraud. The sale itself was an admitted fact and the issue whether the plaintiff had committed any forgery to make it appear as though entire consideration had been paid would be a matter for consideration at the time of trial and therefore, the Court observed that there was no scope for appointment of receiver for seizing machinery for safe custody. I will find no error in the orders passed by the Courts below and they are

¶22

confirmed.

¶23

3. The revision petition is dismissed.

¶24

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶25

October 21, 2013 Pankaj*

¶26

Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2013.10.25 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Karambir Singh v. Jaibir & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karambir Singh v. Jaibir & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Swaran Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Raj Kumar and Others Vs State of Punjab

Teja Singh & Ors. Vs Gram Panchayat Vill Kanech & Ors.

Subhash Passi Vs Meenakshi

Jdr Improvement Trust Vs Pritam Singh

Jdr Improvement Trust Vs Pritam Singh