IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No. 719 of 2022
Dinesh Kumar and others
....Petitioners
VS
Ravi Dutt Sharma and another
....Respondents
CR No. 720 of 2022
Dinesh Kumar and others
....Petitioners
VS
Attar Singh and another
....Respondents
Date of Decision: 04.03.2022
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL
Present: Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners
*****
SUDHIR MITTAL, J. (Oral)
This judgment shall decide CR Nos. 719 and 720 of 2022.
The defendants have preferred this revision petition against order dated 05.10.2021 whereby directions have been issued to the SHO concerned to help the plaintiffs so that the defendants are unable to harvest the standing crop.
A suit for permanent injunction has been filed for restraining the defendants therein from interfering in the physical possession of the plaintiffs. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was also filed. In the plaint it has been averred that defendant No. 1 was the owner of the suit land and he executed an agreement to sell dated 16.08.2005 in favour of the plaintiff. Since the agreement was not honored, a suit for specific performance was filed which was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 01.02.2014. The said 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 21:00:58 ::: CR No. 719 of 2022 and connected case -2-
order was executed and a registered sale deed dated 18.12.2015 came into being. Physical possession was handed over through Court.
The application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was allowed and ad interim temporary injunction was granted. The said order has been upheld in appeal and revision there against has also failed. Thereafter, an application under Section 151 CPC was filed for directions to the SHO concerned to take steps in accordance with the ad interim injunction. As stated earlier the application has been allowed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a declaratory suit has already been filed challenging the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs and the same is pending consideration before the same Court. Thus, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. It has further been submitted that the order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the defendants were not given time to file their reply.
Neither of the contentions is acceptable. Once the order of ad interim injunction has become final, pendency of another declaratory suit would make no difference whatsoever. Filing of reply was also not necessary as passing of the order of ad interim temporary injunction is not in dispute. Thus, revision petition has no merit and is dismissed.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected case.
( SUDHIR MITTAL )
04.03.2022 JUDGE
reena
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 21:00:58 :::