Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 146 (PNJ)

Neelam v. Bhupinder Singh

2014-01-17

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2014
JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral):- The contour of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, respondent-plaintiff Bhupinder Singh son of Des Raj Singh (for brevity “the plaintiff”) has instituted the civil suit (Annexure P4) for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining petitioners-defendants Neelam, wife of Harvinder Kumar and others (for short “the defendants”) from interfering in his peaceful possession over the property in dispute, along with the application for ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC. 2. Sequelly, the defendants contested the suit and stay application, filed written statement (Annexure P5), stoutly denied all the allegations contained in the plaint (Annexure P4) and prayed for its dismissal. 3. Taking into consideration the entire material on record, the trial Court allowed the injunction application filed by the plaintiff and restrained the defendants from dispossessing him from the land in litigation till the partition takes place between the parties, by means of impugned order dated 5.7.2013. 4. Aggrieved thereby, the appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed as well, by the appellate Court, by virtue of impugned judgment dated 6.12.2013. 5. The petitioner-defendants still did not feel satisfied and have preferred the present revision petition, to challenge the impugned order and judgment of Courts below, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this context. 7. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the defendants are also co-sharers in the property in dispute, so, the Courts below have committed legal mistake to restrain them from interfering into the peaceful possession of plaintiff, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 8. As is evident from the record that the plaintiff has filed the suit (Annexure P4) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit property. The petitioners were stated to have subsequently purchased the disputed land from Dr.Vijender Singh and they became co-owners, by way of sale deed dated 16.5.2013. 8. As is evident from the record that the plaintiff has filed the suit (Annexure P4) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit property. The petitioners were stated to have subsequently purchased the disputed land from Dr.Vijender Singh and they became co-owners, by way of sale deed dated 16.5.2013. The Courts below have noticed that even in the jamabandi for the year 2006-2007 (Annexure P1), the defendants were not depicted as in possession of any specific land. In that eventuality, they cannot be permitted to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from it. If they want to claim ownership or separate possession of any particular land, then, appropriate remedy for them is to seek partition of the joint property. In any case, they cannot possibly be permitted to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the land in litigation during the pendency of the civil suit. 9. Meaning thereby, the Courts below have examined the matter in the right perspective and have recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant behalf. Such order/judgment, containing valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as envisaged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless & until, the same are perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner-defendants, so, the impugned order and judgment deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 10. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 11. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of main suit, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition filed by petitioner-defendants is hereby dismissed as such. 12. Needless to mention that nothing observed here-in-above would reflect on the merits of the case, in any manner, during the trial as the same has been so recorded for the limited purpose of deciding the present revision petition.