Dismissed

Jamna Devi v. Bhupinder Singh & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC28 May 2018CR/3596/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order rejecting a plaint application for permanent injunction. The court held that as the averments in the plaint required proof, no ground for interference emerged, especially since the court could not adjudicate evidence in a revision petition.

What did the court decide?

The application for revision was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Jamna Devi Vs Bhupinder Singh & Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

I N THE HI GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI GARH

¶2

Ci vi l Revi si on No. 3596 of 2016 ( O&M) DATE OF DECI SI ON: 28. 05. 2018

Jamna Devi

…. . Pet i t i oner

ver sus

Bhupi nder Si ngh and ot her s

¶7

CORAM: - HON' BLE MR. JUSTI CE AMI T RAWAL

¶8

Pr esent : Mr . Sur esh Kumar Kaushi k, Advocat e f or t he pet i t i oner

¶9

AMI T RAWAL, J. ( Or al ) :

¶10

The pet i t i oner - def endant i s aggr i eved of t he di smi ssal of t he appl i cat i on under Or der 7, Rul e 11 r ead wi t h Sect i on 151 CPC, seeki ng r ej ect i on of t he pl ai nt , i nt er al i a, on t he pr emi se t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s di d not di scl ose cause of act i on and sui t i s under val ued, f or , t he ear l i er sui t f i l ed by t he vendor had al r eady been deci ded i n f avour of t he def endant . Ther ef or e, t he r espondent - pl ai nt i f f coul d not cl ai m t he i nj unct i on r est r ai ni ng t he def endant f r om i nt er f er i ng i n peacef ul possessi on, wher eas, t he possessi on of t he l and had al r eady been t aken by t he pet i t i oner - def endant on 20. 03. 2018. Thus, pr ayer has been made f or set t i ng asi de t he i mpugned or der .

¶11

I have hear d l ear ned counsel f or t he pet i t i oner - def endant and appr ai sed t he paper - book and am of t he vi ew t hat t her e i s no f or ce and mer i t i n t he submi ssi ons made bef or e me.

¶12

The r espondent s- pl ai nt i f f s i nst i t ut ed a sui t f or per manent i nj unct i on r est r ai ni ng t he pet i t i oner - def endant f r om i nt er f er i ng i nt o t he absol ut e and peacef ul possessi on of t he sui t l and, f or , t he def endant want ed t o cause obst r uct i on by r ai si ng a

¶13

Parkash Chand 2018.06.01 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

CR- 3596- 2016

¶15

- 2 -

¶16

boundar y wal l t owar ds sout her n si de i n pl ace of t he al r eady exi st i ng bar bed- wi r e f enci ng at t he l i ne shown by l et t er s ‘ GH’ t o pr ot ect t he sui t l and f r om encr oachment .

¶17

For t he pur pose of adj udi cat i on of t he appl i cat i on under Or der 7, Rul e 11, t he aver ment s i n t he pl ai nt have yet t o be pr oved. I t i s onl y submi t t ed t hat t he pet i t i oner - def endant has al r eady succeeded i n a sui t f i l ed by t he vendor . The or der i mpugned was passed way back on 21. 01. 2016, wher eas, t he r evi si on pet i t i on has been l i st ed i n t he mont h of May, 2018. The sui t was f i l ed i n t he year 2015. Regar di ng t he st age of t he sui t , l ear ned counsel f or t he pet i t i oner st at ed t hat evi dence of t he pl ai nt i f f i s compl et ed and t o an appl i cat i on f i l ed by t he pl ai nt i f f f or appoi nt ment of a Local Commi ssi oner , t he pet i t i oner - def endant has al r eady f i l ed t he r epl y. Be t hat as i t may, t he def endant must have t aken var i ous obj ect i ons i n t he wr i t t en st at ement and i ssues must have been f r amed i n t hat r egar d. Thi s Cour t cannot deal wi t h t he evi dence i n t he pr esent r evi si on pet i t i on. Bot h t he par t i es shal l l ead evi dence i n suppor t of t hei r r espect i ve st ands.

¶18

No gr ound f or i nt er f er ence i s made out . The i mpugned or der cannot be sai d t o be suf f er i ng f r om any i nf i r mi t y. 6. Di smi ssed.

¶19

Anyt hi ng obser ved i n t hi s or der woul d not be consi der ed t o be an expr essi on of opi ni on on t he mer i t s of t he pendi ng sui t .

¶20

1. 2018 par kash

¶21

( AMI T RAWAL) JUDGE

¶22

NOTE: Whet her speaki ng/ non- speaki ng: Speaki ng Whet her r epor t abl e: YES/ NO

¶23

Parkash Chand 2018.06.01 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Jamna Devi v. Bhupinder Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jamna Devi v. Bhupinder Singh & 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

Sunil Kumar & Anr. Vs Partap Singh

Aman Garg and Anr. Vs Raj Kumar and Others

Ajaib Kaur Deceased Thru Lr. Balwinder Kaur and Anr. Vs Bhajan Singh and Another

Harminder Singh Vs Gurpreet Singh

Mam Chand Vs Vinay Parkash

Harish Kumar Vs Madan Singh and Ors.