Dismissed

Baldev Singh v. Major Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Dec 2021CR/3148/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court by a single bench dismissed a petition under Article 227 challenging the dismissal of an application for injunction. The court upheld the lower court's finding that apprehension of joinder trees was baseless and found no material irregularity.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Article 227 dismissed; warning issued to respondents regarding construction during pendency.

Baldev Singh Vs Major Singh — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2021)

¶1

108

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CR-3148-2021 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.12.2021

¶4

Baldev Singh …Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Major Singh …Respondent

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶8

Present: Mr. J.K.Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner **. *****

¶9

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

¶10

Petition herein, under Article 227 of Constitution of India is for setting aside the order dated 15.11.2021 passed by the Learned District Judge, Mansa whereby the appeal against order dated 18.10.2021 vide which learned lower Court dismissed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the petitioner/plaintiff has been dismissed.

¶11

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the case file.

¶12

No interference is called for in the order dated 15.11.2021 passed by the Learned District Judge, Mansa, impugned herein, which is premised on the following reasoning:

¶13

“9 XXX XXX

¶14

This Court is of the confirmed and considered view that a mere apprehension on the part of the plaintiff that the defendant will plant fruit trees and lay water pipesfor irrigating the fruit trees, is baseless and unacceptable that such an act would change the nature of the suit land. If at the time of the partition any part of the join property falls to the share of a particular co-sharer who may not be in possession, the possession of the other co-

¶15

SHALINI BHATIA 2021.12.10 13:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

sharer over that part or any construction or plantation raised by that co-sharer, will not technically and legally come in the way of severing the jointness of the property.

¶17

10. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the confirmed and considered view that no ground whatsoever is made out to interfere in the impugned order. Appeal is found to be bereft of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.”

¶18

Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

¶19

petitioner, there is no room for interference in the aforesaid valid reasons recorded by the trial Court.

¶20

No material irregularity in law or procedure has been committed by the Court below in the pending trial, so as to exercise extraordinary revisional jurisdiction herein.

¶21

In the parting, it is however, made clear that in case any construction/development activity is carried out by the respondents, as alleged by the petitioner, during pendency of the partition proceedings, the same shall be at their own risk and costs.If the area, on which the construction is carried out, eventually falls in the share of the petitioner later on, respondents shall not claim any equity on that ground. The respondents, after changing nature of land, on that ground shall also not claim that the same falls outside the purview of the jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector, who is currently seized of the partition proceedings.

¶22

8. Dismissed.

¶23

07.12.2021 (ARUN MONGA) vandana JUDGE

¶24

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶25

SHALINI BHATIA 2021.12.10 13:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Baldev Singh v. Major Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baldev Singh v. Major Singh

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

Sonakshi Boken Vs State of Haryana and Others

Krishan and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Ram Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sarvjit Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Mohd. Imran Vs State of Haryana and Others

Yash Pal Vs State of Haryana and Ors.