Sher Singh vs Parmod And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 5294 P&H

                                                     Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:057850




204
                                     2023:PHHC:057850
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                              COCP-2982-2016 (O&M)
                                             Date of decision: 25.04.2023

Sher Singh
                                                                 ....Petitioner
                                   Versus
Parmod and Others
                                                             ....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present: Mr. Ravinder Rana, Advocate for Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Amit Singla, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

Mr. Manish Dadwal, AAG, Haryana.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN J. (Oral)

The petitioner alleges violation of the order dated

22.10.2016, vide which while issuing notice of motion, the status quo

regarding the possession as it existed on that day, was directed to be

maintained.

Brief facts of the case are that respondents No.1 and 2 had

filed a civil suit for declaration that they are in possession of the suit

property and the Khasra Girdawari/Jamabandi in the name of the

respondents be corrected. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide

judgment dated 22.04.2013, however, in an appeal filed by the

respondents, the same was allowed and the suit was decreed. One of the

Issue No.3 is framed by the trial Court is with regard to the possession

of the property. While reversing the finding, the Lower Appellate Court

held that Issue No.3 is also decided in favour of respondent No.2,

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:057850

meaning thereby, the respondents No.1 and 2 were held to be owner in

possession of the suit land by the Lower Appellate Court.

In view of the same, the order dated 22.10.2016 passed by

the RSA Bench in the RSA filed by the petitioner, who is the defendant

in the suit would interpret in the manner that it was the respondents

No.1 and 2, who are in possession of the suit property wherein the

status quo order was passed.

Accordingly, no willful disobedience of the order is made

out.

Dismissed.

(ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN) JUDGE

25.04.2023 yakub

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:057850

2 of 2