Single judge allowed the revision to condone a 35-day delay in re-filing an appeal. The underlying appeal against an order refusing an injunction was dismissed as the plaintiff lacked exclusive possession before filing suit.
Delay of 35 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned and the revision allowed.
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.
#1#
RSA No.3310 of 2016 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.3310 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Order: 22.11.2018
Satpal Singh
....Appellant
Versus
Surjit Singh
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present: Mr. PKS Phoolka, Advocate for the appellant.
AMIT RAWAL, J (ORAL)
CM No.8783-C of 2016
For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Delay of 35 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
RSA No.3310 of 2016
Appellant-plaintiff has not been successful in seeking injunction against the co-owner in respect of land measuring 14 kanal 1 marla.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the plaintiff had purchased the land measuring 11 kanal 11 marla vide sale deed dated 05.3.1998 and remaining 10 marla vide sale deed dated 08.2.2000 and was put into possession. The sale deeds of the appellant had also been held to be valid in separate proceedings. Jamabandis (Ex.P.1) and khasra girdawari (Ex.P.2 to Ex.P4) showed exclusive possession of the plaintiff and in such
circumstances, the courts below should not have rejected the injunction MANOJ KUMAR 2018.11.29 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
#2#
RSA No.3310 of 2016 (O&M)
even if status of the defendant was of a co-sharer,
I am afraid that the aforesaid argument is not sustainable. After going through khasra girdawari (Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.4) it reveals that the same pertain to the years from 1995-1996 to 2000 whereas the suit was filed in the year 2012. Khasra girdari preceding to the filing of the suit would have been the testimony to establish the exclusive possession.
In the absence of exclusive possession, injunction to the cosharer cannot be granted and the remedy, if any, was to seek partition.
No fault could be found with the findings returned by both the courts below.
Dismissed.
November 22, 2018 (AMIT RAWAL) manoj JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No
MANOJ KUMAR 2018.11.29 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether delay in re-filing appeal should be condoned.
Whether injunction can be granted against a co-owner without exclusive possession prior to filing.
Satpal Singh
Surjit Singh
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
