Partly allowed

Ram Sarup & Anr. v. Ami Lal & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC29 Aug 2016CR/4085/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged injunction orders under Order 39 CPC in a suit for possession and partition. The bench held that the injunction should not apply to specific land parcels (killa nos. 18 and 19) where the Local Commissioner found petitioners in possession and the prior order operating thereon was ex parte. The rest of the status quo order was upheld while directing expeditious tria

What did the court decide?

Injunction orders dated 17.05.2016 and 30.05.2016 modified to exclude killa nos. 18 and 19; order for other properties upheld.

Ram Sarup & Anr. Vs Ami Lal & Anr. — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

CR No.4085 of 2016 (O&M)

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR No.4085 of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision:29.08.2016

¶5

Ram Sarup and another

¶6

... Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Ami Lal and another ... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶10

Present:Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr. Lal Singh Sandhu, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶12

Mr. Gurvinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶13

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)

¶14

The petitioner-defendants are aggrieved of the orders dated 17.05.2016 and 30.05.2016, whereby, an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, has been disposed of and they have been injuncted in not causing any interference.

¶15

Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-defendants submits that the respondent-plaintiffs filed a suit on the basis of report of Patwari prepared in the year 1983 which is still under challenge and taking advantage of the said entry, the suit was filed and status quo order was passed.

¶16

During the pendency of the suit, Local Commissioner was

¶17

Savita 2016.09.05 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶18

CR No.4085 of 2016 (O&M) {2}

¶19

appointed and as per his report, killa nos.18 and 19 are found in possession of petitioner nos.1 and 2. The petitioners are found in possession of killa nos.18 and 19 and regarding that Court has to decide, as per report of Local Commissioner.

¶20

Mr. Lal Singh Sandhu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 submits that suit is at the initial stage and a direction may be issued to expedite the trial of the suit, till then the status quo order may be maintained. He further submits that plaintiffs have been able to make out a case as per the ingredients of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The order dated 27.07.2016 has been assailed which was set aside by the Collector Ist Grade vide order dated 23.08.2016 and thus, urges this Court for dismissal of the present revision petition.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book and of the view that the order dated 27.07.2016 relied upon by Mr. Sandhu, is an ex parte order. The report of the Local Commissioner shows that there was a dispute as to whether the respondent-plaintiffs were in possession of all khasra numbers, i.e., suit property, as noticed above and Killa nos.18 and 19 are found in possession of the petitioners and killa nos.8 and 9 in favour of proforma respondent No.2 (herein) and defendant No.3 before the trial Court. The order dated 27.07.2016 deals with killa nos.18 and 19 but the fact remains that Local Commissioner has not given a report vis-a-vis killa nos.08 and 09.

¶22

I am of the view that in a suit for injunction, when the parties are co-sharers, can not seek injunction only. If they are found in exclusive

¶23

Savita 2016.09.05 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶24

CR No.4085 of 2016 (O&M) {3}

¶25

possession. in my view, the order of injunction should not be made applicable vis-a-vis killa nos.18 and 19. The report of Local Commissioner is fortified with the order dated 27.07.2016, though the same has been set aside ex parte. In essence, the petitioners have not been given any chance to assail the order. I am of the view, the injunction orders dated 17.05.2016 and 30.05.2016 is liable to be modified which shall not be with regard to killa nos.18 and 19. The rest of the order under challenge is upheld. The plaintiffs are at liberty to seek expeditious disposal of the suit by leading evidence.

¶26

Accordingly, the revision petition stands disposed of.

¶27

It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the matter before the Naib Tehsildar with regard to killa nos.8 and 9 is slated for 19.10.2016.

¶28

The parties are at liberty to make out their case before the concerned authority in accordance with law.

¶29

	(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE
August 29, 2016 savita
Whether Speaking/Reasoned	Yes/No
Whether Reportable	Yes/No

¶30

Savita 2016.09.05 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Ram Sarup & Anr. v. Ami Lal & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Sarup & Anr. v. Ami Lal & Anr.

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

Satish Kumar Chopra Vs Sunil Kumar & Ors.

Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Krishna and Others

Kapoor Singh & Ors. Vs Kartar Kaur & Ors.

Surinder Kaur Vs Paramjit Singh and Ors.

Samay Pal & Anr. Vs Punjab Kashmir Finance Ltd. & Anr.

Gram Panchayat Gindokhar Vs Dhanraj and Ors.