Aryan Singh Vs Manjit Singh and Anr. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Aryan Singh Vs Manjit Singh and Anr. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision Petition disposed of with the observation that the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Kharar would be binding upon the parties to the litigation — the clarification contended for by the revisionist's counsel.

Issue for consideration

Whether the status quo order dated 13.03.2023 passed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Kharar in a suit to which the revisionist is not a party, and reflected in the revenue record, restrains the revisionist from selling the property, and the extent/persons by whom that order is binding.

Court's answer

It is a settled principle of law that an injunction order, if any, passed is binding upon the parties to that litigation.

Ratio / Principle

The revisionist is not a party to the litigation pending before the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Kharar.

Key takeaways

The Revision Petition stands disposed of with the observation that the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Kharar would be binding upon the parties to the litigation.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision (CR No. 5158 of 2025, Punjab & Haryana HC, decided 04.08.2025, Virinder Aggarwal, J.) — Aryan Singh v. Manjit Singh and another. Revision against the order dated 12.01.2024 of the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Kharar dismissing the revisionist's application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The revisionist, alleging himself owner of the property, was aggrieved by the order dated 13.03.2023 passed in an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, wherein (para No. 27 of that order) status quo qua transfer of the property by alienation, mortgaging or creating charge till further orders was directed; according to the revisionist's counsel, this order stood reflected in the revenue record so that he could not sell the property. Held: it is a settled principle that an injunction order, if any, passed is binding upon the parties to that litigation, and the revisionist is not a party to that litigation. The Revision Petition was accordingly disposed of with the observation that the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Kharar would be binding upon the parties to the litigation. Oral judgment; speaking/reasoned and reportable columns marked Yes/No as printed. No precedents were cited.

CR No. 5158 of 2025

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

123

CR No. 5158 of 2025 DATE OF DECISION :- 04.08.2025

Aryan Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

Manjit Singh and another

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL

Present :- Mr. Jagtar Kureel, Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Sansaniwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)

Revisionist has filed this Revision Petition against the impugned order dated 12.01.2024 vide which the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Kharar has dismissed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC filed by the revisionist.

Revisionist alleges himself to be the owner of the property and he is aggrieved by the order dated 13.03.2023 passed in an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC vide which the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Kharar in para No. 27 of the order has directed that status quo qua the transfer of above mentioned property by way of alienation, mortgaging or creating charge till further orders be maintained and the counsel for the revisionist contended that this order has been reflected in the revenue record so he is not allowed to sell the property. It is settled principle of law that the injunction order, if any, passed is binding upon the parties to that litigation

and the revisionist is not a party to the litigation in the Court of Civil Judge PARVINDER SINGH 2025.08.05 12:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CR No. 5158 of 2025

2

(Jr. Divn.), Kharar and counsel for the revisionist contends that the revisionist would be satisfied in case it is made clear that the order would be binding upon the parties to the litigation.

So, the Revision Petition stands disposed of with observation that the order passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Kharar would be binding upon the parties to the litigation.

(VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE

04.08.2025

P.Singh

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

PARVINDER SINGH 2025.08.05 12:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment