Dismissed

Savita and Anr. v. Surender and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Aug 2023CR/3462/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a revision petition seeking to set aside an order dismissing an interim injunction application under Order 39 CPC. The Court found no error in the lower courts' decision, noting that defendants had exclusively purchased and transferred the tube-well connection rights.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; order dated 01.05.2023 allowed by the Additional District Judge stood confirmed.

Savita and Anr. Vs Surender and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.No.3462 of 2023

¶2

2023:PHHC:111873

¶3

-1-

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶5

Sr. No.126

¶6

Case No. : C.R.No.3462 of 2023

¶7

Date of Decision : August 24, 2023

¶8

Savita and another .... Petitioners

¶9

vs.

¶10

Surender and others .... Respondents

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH.

¶12

¶13

Present : Mr. Paramjeet Phor, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶14

¶15

GURBIR SINGH, J. :

¶16

1. Prayer in this petition filed by one of the plaintiffs and one proforma defendants, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is for setting aside the judgment/order dated 01.05.2023 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Charkhi Dadri (Annexure P-1), thereby allowing the appeal filed by defendant no.1-respondent no.1 against the order dated 11.05.2022, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Charkhi Dadri (Annexure P-4), whereby the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC was allowed.

¶17

2. The parties are being addressed as per original suit.

¶18

3. As per the case of the plaintiffs, plainiff no.1 and his brothers were co-sharers in the suit land measuring 43 kanals 0 marlas, as mentioned

¶19

in the plaint, as per jamabandi for the year 2020-21. No partition had taken place. About 40 years ago, plaintiff no.1 Mahender and his brother

¶20

MONIKA 2023.09.19 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

C.R.No.3462 of 2023

¶22

-2-

¶23

2023:PHHC:111873

¶24

Ramphal applied for a tube-well connection and all the expenses were borne by them jointly. Thereafter, tubewell connection was issued in the name of Mahender.

¶25

3. Learned Trial Court held that ends of justice would be met if status quo qua use and enjoyment of the tube-well in question as well as its location be maintained by the parties. Learned Appellate Court, however, has held that no prima facie case is made out and balance of convenience is more towards defendant no.1. It has been held that no irreparable loss is going to be caused to the plaintiffs which can not be compensated later on. So, the application was dismissed.

¶26

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that property is joint among all the co-sharers. No partition has taken place. Since the time of installation of tube-well in question, the same is being used by all the cosharers. In the sale deed dated 28.05.2018, executed by Sanjita, daughter of Ramphal, there is clear mention about the electricity connection in question. Since the land is owned jointly, so the tube-well installed in the said land also becomes the joint property. Reliance has been placed on a judgment rendered in Gopi Ram vs. Shyam Sunder and others – 2006(2) LJR 156 .

¶27

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file.

¶28

6. Plaintiffs never denied execution of sale deed dated 02.11.2021. One of the vendors is son of plaintiff no.1 and the other vendor is son of plaintiff no.2. The land, on which the tube-well connection is iinstalled, has been exclusively purchased by defendant no.1. The connection has already been transferred in the name of defendant no.1. The learned Trial Court is MONIKA 2023.09.19 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

2023:PHHC:111873

¶30

-3-

¶31

C.R.No.3462 of 2023

¶32

yet to decide, on the basis of evidence, the rights of the plaintiffs.

¶33

7. This Court finds no error with the judgment/order dated 01.05.2023 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Charkhi Dadri (Annexure P-1), thereby allowing the appeal filed by defendant no.1respondent no.1 against the order dated 11.05.2022, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Charkhi Dadri (Annexure P-4), allowing the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC.

¶34

8. In view of the above, finding no merit in the instant revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed.

¶35

9. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of along with this judgment.

¶36

August 24 monika	, 2023	(GURBIR SINGH) JUDGE
	Whether speaking/reasoned ?	Yes/No.
	Whether reportable ?	Yes/No.

¶37

MONIKA 2023.09.19 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Savita and Anr. v. Surender and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savita and Anr. v. Surender and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Paramjit Kaur Vs Sarabjit Singh

Khubi Ram Vs M/S Dlf Home Developers Ltd.

Khubi Ram Vs M/S Dlf Home Developers Ltd.

Fci Vs M/S Chander Mal Ghasu Ram

Gurleen Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Jaswinder Kaur Vs Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur and Others