Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1679 (PNJ)

Ajmel Singh v. Kulwinder Singh

2010-05-14

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

body2010
JUDGMENT Rakesh Kumar Jain J.:- Plaintiff has filed this revision petition against the order of Additional District Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Tract Court, Ludhiana, dismissing the miscellaneous appeal filed by the plaintiff vide his order dated 18.10.2008 against the order dated 28.02.2007 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ludhiana, whereby an application, filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) was disposed of by the trial Court directing both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession over the suit property till the final disposal of the main case. 2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction in order to restrain defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession over the two shops falling in property No.11/12 situated at Jawahar Nagar, Ludhiana. Pleaded case of the plaintiff is that he along with his brother Kuldeep Singh (since deceased) took one of the above said shops falling in property No.11/12 from Morni Devi Wd/o Sh. Mangal Sain in the year 1984 @ Rs.300/- per month and the other shop in the year 1989 @ Rs.470/- per month. There was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and Morni Devi but the present defendants, who are absolute strangers are claiming themselves to be purchaser of the property without any proof. It was alleged that on 10.12.2005, the defendants along with some henchmen came to the property in question and removed some of the goods of the plaintiff from the almirah like letter pad, ledger books etc. and while leaving threatened to take forcible possession of both the shops. The plaintiff immediately sent telegrams and application to the Police authority and filed the suit as well. Defendants had lodged caveat application, supported by an affidavit of the same date, which was attested on 19.12.2005 by the Oath Commissioner, before the Court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Ludhiana on 14.12.2005, in which it was alleged that the defendants are owners of the property in dispute in which the plaintiff is a tenant. The defendants are not using the property in dispute, which is lying locked. Divn.), Ludhiana on 14.12.2005, in which it was alleged that the defendants are owners of the property in dispute in which the plaintiff is a tenant. The defendants are not using the property in dispute, which is lying locked. The learned trial Court, while disposing of the application for temporary injunction has observed that from the perusal of documents and pleadings it reveals that both the parties are claiming their possession over the suit property, which is a matter of evidence. So both the parties were directed to maintain status quo qua possession over the suit property till the final disposal of the main case. 3. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court, which was dismissed on the ground that both the parties are claiming their possession over the suit property and the Court is not in a position to conclude, as to who is in actual possession, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession. 4. Aggrieved against the order of the Courts below, the present petition has been filed in which the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no confusion with regard to possession over the property in dispute as the same has been admitted by the respondents in their caveat, which is supported by an affidavit, in which they have alleged that the plaintiff is a tenant in shop in dispute, which though is lying locked. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that it is not the case of the defendants that the plaintiff has ever been evicted by any competent Court of law and now the defendants cannot wriggle out of their own admission, which proves the possession of the plaintiff. 5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that caveat is not a part of the pleadings, therefore, it cannot be taken into consideration and the suit is now five years old which can be ordered to be expedited with maintaining the status quo order granted by both the Courts below. 6. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. 7. 6. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. 7. No doubt, the pleadings are the plaint and written statement but in an application filed by the defendants before the trial Court under Section 148-A of the CPC, at the time of lodging caveat application along with an affidavit of the General Power of Attorney of both the respondents, it has been admitted that the plaintiff is a tenant over the shop in dispute without stating that his tenancy has been terminated or he has been evicted by any order of the competent Court of law. Therefore, in my view, at this stage of interim injunction, the affidavit filed in the Court, though, with the caveat application cannot be ignored as it contains an admission on the part of the defendants that plaintiff is in possession as a tenant. It is well settled that admission is the best mode of proof. It is also well settled that once a tenant always a tenant until and unless the tenancy is terminated and the tenant is evicted from the premises by an order of competent Court of law. In these circumstances, I find force in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Court below should not have directed the parties to maintain status quo rather the plaintiff should have granted interim injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering in his possession especially when there is an allegation that they had already tried to dispossess them forcibly as the defendants had come to the premises in question along with their henchmen on 10.12.2005 and had removed certain articles belonging to the plaintiff lying in his almirah. 8. In view of the above discussion, the present revision petition is allowed. The defendants are restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the shop in dispute till the decision of the main suit. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the defendants has submitted that already five years have passed but the suit is not making any headway as it is yet at the stage of plaintiff’s evidence. He prays for expediting the trial as it is claimed that they have purchased the property and have become the owner. 10. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the defendants has submitted that already five years have passed but the suit is not making any headway as it is yet at the stage of plaintiff’s evidence. He prays for expediting the trial as it is claimed that they have purchased the property and have become the owner. 10. The learned counsel for the plaintiff did not raise any objection in this regard and hence, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the suit and decide the same as early as possible preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order of this Court. ------------