Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Singh vs Jaswinder Kaur And Anr on 19 March, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
2024:PHHC:039665
225
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-1215-2018 (O&M)
Date of decision : 19.03.2024
Surinder Singh ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Jaswinder Kaur & Anr. ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Surinder Singh petitioner-in-person.
Mr. Mohd. Yusaf, Advocate and
Ms. Arzoo Modi, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. Mohd. Arshad, Advocate for respondent No.2.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
1. The present revision petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 09.12.2015 passed by the Trial Court granting injunction in favour of plaintiff- respondent No.1 and the order dated 02.12.2017 passed by the First Appellate Court dismissing the appeal filed by the defendant-petitioner herein challenging the order granting injunction.
2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that a simpliciter suit for permanent injunction was filed by plaintiff-respondent No.1 for restraining the defendants (petitioner and respondent No.2 herein) from interfering in the peaceful possession of plaintiff-respondent No.1 from the Yogesh Sharma 2024.03.20 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court Chandigarh
2024:PHHC:039665
CR-1215-2018 (O&M) -2-
house i.e. double storey building measuring 123 sq. yards at Mohalla Makhdoompura, Jalandhar consisting of one go-down, stair case and a bathroom on the ground floor and four rooms, two kitchens and two bathrooms on the first floor as detailed in the headnote of the plaint. Alongwith the suit an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was also filed. The Trial Court vide order dated 09.12.2015 granted ad interim relief to plaintiff-respondent No.1 holding that a prima facie case is made out in favour of plaintiff-respondent No.1 and balance of convenience also lies in her favour. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the defendant-petitioner herein which appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 02.12.2017. Hence, the present revision petition.
3. The defendant-petitioner appearing in person has contended that the defendant-petitioner is the lawful owner of the suit property, however, a false and fabricated lease deed has been got prepared allegedly from the Punjab Wakf Board (respondent No.2 herein) showing plaintiff- respondent No.1 as a tenant of the Punjab Wakf Board and on the basis of the same the present suit has been filed. It is further the contention of the defendant-petitioner that a totally false case has been set up.
4. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that it is the case of the defendant-petitioner himself that plaintiff- respondent No.1 is the tenant in the premises and that it being a simpliciter suit for injunction where the possession is also admitted, hence a prima facie Yogesh Sharma 2024.03.20 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court Chandigarh
2024:PHHC:039665
CR-1215-2018 (O&M) -3-
case is made out under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of ad interim injunction.
5. I have heard the defendant-petitioner in person and the learned counsel for the respondents.
6. In the present case though the case set up by plaintiff- respondent No.1 was that the Punjab Wakf Board had executed a lease deed in her favour, however, the Punjab Wakf Board, despite being duly served, failed to file its written statement and the defense was struck off on 29.07.2015 and the order striking off the defense was not challenged by the Punjab Wakf Board. Since the defendant-petitioner in his written statement has admitted that plaintiff-respondent No.1 is in possession, hence, a prima facie case qua possession is made out in favour of plaintiff-respondent No.1 and therefore no interference is called for in the orders passed by both the Courts. It is, however, clarified that any observation made herein or by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in the impugned orders shall not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
7. Disposed off accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
19.03.2024 ( ALKA SARIN )
Yogesh Sharma JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO Yogesh Sharma 2024.03.20 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court Chandigarh