Co-sharer brothers disputed use of a tubewell connection in the respondent's name. Both lower courts rejected the petitioner's temporary injunction application, noting his earlier suit admitted a 2002 family settlement under which another tubewell came to his share. The High Court found no illegality or perversity and dismissed the revision.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR-4888-2024 (O&M) Reserved on:-03.09.2024 Pronounced on: 04.09.2024
SURINDER SINGH
. . . . PETITIONER
Vs.
SHYAM SINGH
. . . . RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present:Mr. Nitin Bhanwala, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate, for the caveator-respondent.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
Application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the plaintiff (petitioner herein) in Civil Suit No. 378 of 2022 titled ‘Surender Singh Vs. Sham Singh’, seeking temporary injunction, was rejected by learned Civil Judge, (Jr. Divn.) Assandh vide order dated 10.03.2023 (Annexure P-3). Civil miscellaneous appeal No.29 of 2023 against the said order has been rejected by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karnal vide order dated 31.05.2024 (Annexure P-4). Against these orders, plaintiff has approached this Court by way of present revision.
2.1 Undisputedly, parties are real brothers. They are co-sharers of 196 kanal 09 marla of land situated at Village Munak, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal. Dispute is regarding user of tube well installed in Killa No.03 of rectangle No.60 having connection UA-17-1224-L, which is the name of respondent-defendant. It was alleged by the plaintiff-petitioner that though the entire land is joint in which petitioner is co-sharer, but the respondent was restraining him from using the abovesaid tubewell.
2.2 It has been found by both the Courts below that in an earlier litigation bearing Civil Suit No.228 of 2016, which was filed by the plaintiff –
VIVEK PAHWA 2024.09.05 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR-4888-2024
2024:PHHC: 115322
petitioner himself, stand was taken by him to the effect that a family settlement was effected in the year 2002, as per which another tubewell connection bearing No.AP-32-1054 -N installed in Killa No.05 of Rectangle No.60 had come to his share. Both the Courts found that thus, the tube-wells were partitioned amongst the family members as per the family settlement and that plaintiff could not be allowed to withdraw from the admission made in the earlier litigation.
VIVEK PAHWA 2024.09.05 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Page 2 of 3
CR-4888-2024
2024:PHHC: 115322
used by the defendant, which is in his name, plaintiff-petitioner is unnecessarily entangling him in the repeated litigations.
(DEEPAK GUPTA) 04.09.2024 JUDGE ����� Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes Whether reportable? No
VIVEK PAHWA 2024.09.05 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Page 3 of 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revision against rejection of temporary injunction regarding use of a tubewell by co-sharers should be allowed despite the plaintiff's earlier admission of family settlement.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Surinder Singh
Shyam Singh
Deepak Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
