Dismissed¶29

Rati Ram v. Bijender Singh and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC20 May 2025CR/1836/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Temporary injunction refused to co-sharer in joint land / joint khewat; concurrent findings of no exclusive possession; revisional jurisdiction — new evidence (khasra girdwari) not produced before courts below cannot be considered; alleged breach of interim status quo order dated 21.03.2024 by harvesting crop; COCP and civil revision dismissed; Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh; Justice Anil Kshetarpal; Rati Ram v. Bijender Singh and others; CR No.1836 of 2024 (O&M); COCP No.4691 of 2024 (O&M); trial court to decide suit uninfluenced.

What did the court decide?

None; the revision petition as well as the COCP are dismissed, and all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are disposed of. ¶29

Rati Ram Vs Bijender Singh and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the revision petition as well as the COCP are dismissed, and all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are disposed of.

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court, in revisional jurisdiction, should interfere with the concurrent orders of the courts below dismissing the plaintiff-petitioner's application for grant of temporary injunction. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

New documents (copies of khasra girdwaries) which were not produced before the courts below will not be taken into consideration while exercising revisional jurisdiction against the impugned orders.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

It is evident that the petitioner is not in the exclusive possession of the property, the alleged harvesting of the crop by the respondents notwithstanding the status quo order being indicative of this.

¶27

Key takeaways

No ground is made out to interfere with the concurrent orders passed by the courts below dismissing the application for temporary injunction.ratio¶28
The trial court will independently decide the suit uninfluenced by the observations made in the impugned orders or by this court.obiter¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Anil Kshetarpal, J., oral order dated 20.05.2025) disposes of Civil Revision No.1836 of 2024 (O&M) and COCP No.4691 of 2024 (O&M) by a common order. A co-sharer in joint land, whose application for temporary injunction was refused by concurrent orders of the courts below (the suit property forming part of a joint khewat, with no material proving his exclusive possession), sought reconsideration on the strength of khasra girdwaries not produced earlier. The Court held that in revisional jurisdiction it is not appropriate to consider new documents not produced before the courts below; further, the alleged harvesting of the crop by the respondents despite the interim status quo order dated 21.03.2024 showed the petitioner was not in exclusive possession. Finding no ground to interfere, the Court dismissed both the revision petition and the COCP, observing that the trial court will independently decide the suit uninfluenced by the observations in the impugned orders or by this Court.

¶1

CR No.1836 of 2024 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR No.1836 of 2024 (O&M) Date of Order:20.05.2025

Rati Ram

.Petitioner

Versus

Bijender Singh and others

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

COCP No.4691 of 2024(O&M)

Rati Ram

.Petitioner

Versus

Bijender Singh and others

¶15

..Respondents

¶16

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

¶17

Present: Mr. R.A.Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶18

None for the respondents.

¶19

ANIL KSHETARPAL, JUDGE (Oral)

¶20

With the consent of the learned counsel representing the petitioner, two connected cases, namely, Civil Revision No.1836 of 2024 and COCP No.4691 of 2024, shall stand disposed of by this common order. 2. The plaintiff assails the correctness of the concurrent orders passed by the courts below while dismissing his application for grant of temporary injunction. Admittedly, the parties are co-sharers in the joint land. Moreover, both the courts have held that the plaintiff failed to produce any material to prove his exclusive possession over the suit property which is a part of joint khewat.

¶21

The learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that inadvertently copies of khasra girdwaries were not produced before the trial NARESH KUMAR 2025.05.22 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CR No.1836 of 2024 (O&M) -2-

¶23

court but the same have been produced before this court.

¶24

This court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel representing the petitioner.

¶25

This court is exercising revisional jurisdiction against the impugned orders passed by the trial court in which appeal has been affirmed by the appellate court. It will not be appropriate to take into consideration the new documents which were not produced before the courts below.

¶26

In COCP, the learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that despite interim order of status quo with respect to possession passed by the Court on 21.03.2024, the respondents have harvested the crop.

¶27

Thus, it is evident that the petitioner is not in the exclusive possession of the property.

¶28

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and discussion, no ground to interfere with the concurrent orders passed by the courts below, is made out.

¶29

Consequently, the revision petition as well as COCP are dismissed.

¶30

Needless to observe that the trial court will independently decide the suit uninfluenced by the observations made in the impugned orders or by this court.

¶31

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.

¶32

(ANIL KSHETARPAL) JUDGE

¶33

May 20, 2025 nt Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶34

NARESH KUMAR 2025.05.22 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Rati Ram v. Bijender Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rati Ram v. Bijender Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushma Sapra Vs Jagtar Singh

Tulsi Ram Vs Mahesh Shah and Others

Harbhajan Singh and Another Vs Charanjit Singh and Others

Sukhdev Singh Vs Anita Rani and Others

Punjab Waqf Board (Now Known as Haryana Waqf Board) Vs Razaque Ali

Narender Bhardwaj Alias Narender Kumar and Others Vs Sristhi Alias Srishthi