Disposed

Harbhajan Singh v. Jeet Singh & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Mar 2018CR/4278/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a miscellaneous criminal case impugning interim orders in a property suit, the High Court upheld the status quo directions. The Court directed the trial court to expedite the trial within one year and afford four effective opportunities for evidence deposition to prevent multiplicity of litigation.

What did the court decide?

Expedit the trial within one year; allow four effective opportunities for each party to lead evidence.

Harbhajan Singh Vs Jeet Singh & Anr. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

Manoj Kumar 2018.03.13 13:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶2

CR No.4278 of 2016

¶3

#1#

¶4

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

¶5

CR No.4278 of 2016

Harbhajan Singh

....Petitioner

Versus

Jeet Singh and Ors.

....Respondents

Date of Order: 08.3.2018

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶13

Present: Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶14

Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶15

AMIT RAWAL, J (ORAL)

¶16

Petitioner-defendant No.2 is aggrieved of the concurrent orders dated 20.9.2013 (P.5) rendered by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Hoshiarpur whereby in the suit preferred by the respondents-plaintiffs claiming declaration in respect of the suit land as mentioned in the head note of the plaint, application filed by the respondents-plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC for grant of ad-interim injunction, has been allowed and the parties have been directed to maintain status quo regarding alienation of the suit property till further orders and order dated 03.9.2015 passed by Addl. District Judge, Hoshiarpur vide which the appeal of the petitioner has been disposed of while modifying the order of the trial Court to the extent that the parties to the suit shall maintain status quo regarding alienation with regard to land measuring 17 kanals 17 marlas.

¶17

CR No.4278 of 2016 #2#

¶18

Before learned counsel for the parties could argue the case, it has been brought to the notice of the court that the suit was filed on 11.2.2013 and is listed for evidence of the respondents-plaintiffs. In my view, in case the orders under challenge is modified, it would lead to multiplicity of litigation and the plaintiffs would be left in lurch in case alienation is affected.

¶19

Without commenting on merits of the case, it would be in the fitness of things and will not lead to miscarriage of justice if while upholding the impugned orders, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by affording four effective opportunities each to both the parties to lead their evidence.

¶20

Disposed of accordingly.

¶21

March 08, 2018		`(AMIT RAWAL)
manoj		JUDGE
	Whether speaking/reasoned:	Yes/No
	Whether Reportable	: Yes/No

Harbhajan Singh v. Jeet Singh & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harbhajan Singh v. Jeet Singh & Anr.

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

Gurbachan Singh and Others Vs Gurcharan Singh and Others

Ram Lal Tantia Vs Vijay Kumar & Ors.

Rekha Sharma Vs Santosh and Ors.

Indusind Bank and Anr. Vs Neeraj

Surinder Kumar Vs Harmanprit Singh and Ors.

Sunny Sapra Vs Shallu