Nachhattar Kaur and Others Vs Harcharan Singh and Others

Th e petitioners/defendants have f iled the present revision peti t ion under Article 2 2 7 of the Constitution of India c hallenging the interim order d a ted 31.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, in c ase bearing No. C A –554–2025, whereby during p endency of the appeal filed u n der Order 43 Rule 1 (r) CPC, the petitioners/defend a nts No. 1 to 4 have been restrai n ed from alienating the suit property till the disposa l of the said appeal. Brief Facts

¶15

Th e brief facts, as necessary for t h e disposal of the present petit i on, are that the pl a intiffs/respondents No. 1 and 2 instituted a suit for manda t ory injunction dire c ting defendants No. 1 to 4/peti t ioners to comply with the term s of agreement date d 09.07.2021. Under the said ag r eement, defendants No. 1 to 4 h ad allegedly unde r taken to take care of multiple litigations concerning the lan d in dispute, while a ll expenses were to be borne by the plaintiffs. It was further ag r eed that once the la n d is cleared of litigation and m utation of ownership is effecte d in the name of de f endants No. 1 to 4, then upon s ale of the property, half of the s ale TRIPTI SAINIproceeds would be shared with the plaintiffs in t he ratio of 60:40. 2025.09.09 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

- 2 -

¶17

CR-5254-2025 (O&M)

¶18

It i s the case of the plaintiffs tha t in disregard of above agreem e nt, defendants No. 1 to 4 entered into an agreeme n t to sell the property to defen d ant No.5 without a dhering to their commitmen t under the aforesaid agreem e nt. Consequently, t he plaintiffs sought injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 C PC restraining defe n dants No. 1 to 4 from alienati n g the property without paying h alf of the sale proc e eds to the plaintiffs.

¶19

Findings of the Trial Court

¶20

Th e learned trial Court, after h earing both sides, dismissed the application und e r Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC v i de order dated 09.05.2025, hol d ing that the agreem e nt relied upon by the plaintiff s was depend on a future event a nd was not presen t ly enforceable. It was further h eld that there was no clause in the agreement rest r aining alienation of the land, and hence no prima facie c a se, balance of convenience or irreparable injury wa s made out.

¶21

Findings of the Appellate Court on Application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC

¶22

Aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC. During p e ndency of the said appeal, an a p plication under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC was file d . After hearing the parties, th e learned Additional District Ju d ge, Ludhiana, pas s ed the impugned interim or d er dated 31.05.2025 restrai n ing defendants No. 1 to 4 from alienating the su i t property till the disposal of the appeal.

¶23

Consideration

¶24

6. On Maintainability of the Revision Petition

¶25

It is well settled that orders passe d under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 C PC are appealable u nder Order 43 Rule 1(r). Onc e such an appeal is pending be f ore the lower Ap p ellate Court, any interim or d er passed therein is not fur t her

¶26

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.09 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

- 3 -

¶28

CR-5254-2025 (O&M)

¶29

appealable. Th e only remedy available to the a ggrieved party is to approach t his Court under Ar t icle 227 of the Constitution of I ndia, but interference is warra n ted only in cases of jurisdictional error, perver s ity, or manifest illegality. T h us, technically, the present petition is maintainable.

¶30

7. On the Objection Regarding Maintainability of the Suit

¶31

Th e contention raised on behalf o f the petitioners that the suit for mandatory inju n ction is barred under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief A ct, 1963 and that a n alternative remedy of recover y is available, is not required t o be adjudicated in the present revision petiti o n. Such issues concerning the maintainability of the suit fall within the do m ain of the trial court in the m ain proceedings. T h is Court, while examining an interlocutory interim order pa s sed during pendenc y of an appeal, cannot decide u p on the merits of maintainabilit y of the underlying s uit. Reliance placed upon by th e learned counsel for the petitio n ers in the case of Spectrum Life Medical Device Private Limited Vs. Eme Super Speciality Hospital Private Limited and Others, 2019(3) PLR 353 is of no hel p to the petitioners i n view of the observations made herein-above.

¶32

8. On Interference with the Impugned Interim Order

¶33

Th e scope of interference in interlocutory and discretionary orde r s is limited. The i m pugned order is merely a pro t ective order restraining aliena t ion during pendenc y of the appeal. It does not deci d e the final rights of the parties. T he appellate court, while exercising discretion, ha s attempted to preserve the sub j ect matter of the su i t. No jurisdictional error or per v ersity has been shown.

¶34

Conclusion

¶35

In view of the above discussi o n, no ground is made out for interference by this Court in exercise of its su p ervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision p e tition is accordingly dismissed. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.09 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

- 4 -

¶37

CR-5254-2025 (O&M)

¶38

However, keeping in view that the appeal before the Lower Appel l ate Court has been pending since May 2025, the learned Additional District Ju d ge, Ludhiana, is directed to dispose off CA–554–2 0 25 expeditiously, preferably wi t hin a period of one m onth from the date of receipt o f a certified copy of this order. 11. Pe n ding application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶39

September 05, 2 025 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE Wheth e r speaking/non-speaking : Spea k ing Wheth e r reportable : Yes/ N o

¶40

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.09 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Nachhattar Kaur and Others v. Harcharan Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nachhattar Kaur and Others v. Harcharan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukhtiar Kaur Vs Sadhu Singh

Muktiar Kaur Vs Sadhu Singh

Mukhtiar Kaur Vs Balbir Singh

Attar Singh etc. Vs Jagan Nath etc.

Kitabo Devi and Others Vs Shanti Devi and Others

Ishwar Singh Vs Sanjay