The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed this revision petition under Article 227. The Court upheld the interim injunction order passed by the Civil Judge and the judgment dismissing the appeal by the Addl. District Judge, finding no merit in the challenge and no illegality.
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.
250
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.1127 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision: September 12, 2014
Davinder Kaur
...Petitioner
Versus
Pritpal Singh and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.Rajesh Duhan, Advocate for the petitioner.
None for the respondents.
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Petitioner Davinder Kaur has filed this revision petition against Pritpal Singh and other respondents under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 10.11.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Samana, whereby application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 was allowed and judgment dated 12.12.2013 passed by learned Addl. District Judge (FTC), Patiala, whereby appeal against order dated 10.11.2012 has been dismissed.
Notice of motion was issued but despite service, none has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have
gone through the record.
VINEET GULATI 2014.09.30 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CR No.1127 of 2014
-2-
The brief facts of the case are that Pritpal Singh etc. plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction against Davinder Kaur and Avtar Singh. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they purchased the suit property from Himanshu Luthra @ Anshu for lawful consideration and the mutation of the same has been entered and sanctioned in their favour and since then, plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property and defendants are mere strangers. Defendant No.1 appeared and filed written statement denying whole case of the plaintiffs and it has been averred that Deepak Luthra father of Himanshu Luthra has given the house in question to defendant No.1 on rent on behalf of his son Himanshu Luthra in the month of May 2007 on monthly rent of 500/as Champa mother of Deepak Luthra and grand mother of Himanshu Luthra had taken an amount of 1 lac from defendant No.1. It was settled between them that no rent will be charged from defendant No.1 and since then electric connection is running in the name of Arun Singh. On 10.05.2011, Himanshu Luthra @ Anshu approached defendant No.1 for sale of the house and an oral agreement was entered into between them regarding the sale of the house for a total consideration of 3,50,000/-. Later on, on 10.05.2011, an additional amount of 1 lac was paid by defendant No.1 i.e. to Himanshu Luthra. The electricity and water connection were installed in the name of defendant No.1 and later on Himanshu Luthra put off the matter on one pretext or the other.
Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Samana, vide impugned order dated 10.11.2012 held that as per the copy of the sale
VINEET GULATI 2014.09.30 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CR No.1127 of 2014
-3-
deed dated 22.09.2011, Himanshu Luthra @ Anshu alienated 3 marlas of land out of suit khasra number to the plaintiffs. As per the jamabandi for the year 2005-06, the plaintiffs are shown to be joint owner in possession of the suit land. In the jamabandi for the year 2010-11, a specific note has been given with regard to alienation of 3 marlas of land out of 9-12 marlas of land in favour of the plaintiffs.
The revenue record and sale deed show that plaintiffs are in joint possession of the suit property along with Himanshu Luthra. Defendant No.1 is relying upon the oral agreement to sell, photograph and on one electricity bill and site plan. These documents will not prove the possession of defendant No.1 in any way. Defendant No.1 has not produced on record any rent note nor rent receipts or any other document to prove her tenancy and possession. Otherwise also, as per record, Himanshu Luthra is owner of the property and defendant No.1 is claiming tenancy and possession from father of Himanshu Luthra.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find that there is prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs and balance of convenience also lies in their favour and if temporary injunction is not granted, plaintiffs will suffer irreparable loss. The judgment passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Patiala upholding the order passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Samana is also correct and as per law. Both the Courts below have used the judicial discretion. No illegality has been pointed out in the impugned order and judgment passed by the Courts below.
VINEET GULATI 2014.09.30 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CR No.1127 of 2014
-4-
In view of the above discussion, I find that impugned order dated 10.11.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Samana and judgment dated 12.12.2013 passed by learned Addl. District Judge (FTC), Patiala are correct and as per law and do not require any interference from this Court.
Therefore, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is dismissed.
September 12, 2014 Vgulati
(INDERJIT SINGH) JUDGE
VINEET GULATI 2014.09.30 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the interim injunction order should be allowed.
Whether the learned courts below committed any illegality in passing the interim injunction order.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Davinder Kaur
Pritpal Singh
INDERJIT SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
