Dinesh Kumar And Others vs Ravi Dutt Sharma And Anothers
2022 Latest Caselaw 1200 P&H

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

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