Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parmanand vs Des Raj on 4 December, 2023
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154439
2023:PHHC:154439
149 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-4307-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 04.12.2023
Parmanand
....Petitioner
Versus
Des Raj
..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present:- Ms. Prabhjot Kaur Virk, Advocate for the petitioner
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)
1. The correctness of the concurrent findings of fact
arrived at by the courts below, while dismissing the petitioner's
application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') is assailed by the
plaintiff. He filed a suit for the partition of the joint property. He
claims ownership of 11 marlas land in the joint khewat of land
measuring 5 kanals 1 marlas (101 marlas). The parties were
directed to maintain the status quo during the pendency of the suit.
The petitioner claims that the aforesaid order of status quo has been
violated as the respondents have carried out further construction.
Ultimately, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial
court on 08.09.2015. Both the courts have found that the plaintiff
has failed to prove that the respondent has wilfully violated the
temporary injunction order.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154439
CR-4307-2023 (O&M) 2 2023:PHHC:154439
2. Learned counsel representing the petitioner contends
that the judgment and decree passed by the trial court on 08.09.2015
in the main suit has been reversed by the First Appellate Court on
22.11.2023. She has produced a print out of the aforesaid judgment.
3. A perusal of the judgment passed by the First Appellate
Court shows that a preliminary decree for partition of the joint
property has been passed. The petitioner has been held entitled to
11 marlas land out of the joint land of 101 marlas.
4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner further
submits that in view of the judgment passed by the First Appellate
Court, the impugned orders are required to be set aside
5. This Court has considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel representing the petitioner. In the proceedings
under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC, the Court tries to implement
the injunction order and if the other party is proved to have wilfully
violated the same, the court can pass an order detaining the violator
in civil imprisonment. However, the petitioner is required to prove
that there is a wilful violation of the injunction order. In this case,
both the courts, on appreciation of evidence, have come to a
conclusion that the petitioner has failed to prove the wilful violation
of the injunction order.
6. Learned counsel representing the petitioner has failed
to draw the attention of the Court to any substantive error or
perversity in the impugned orders.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154439
CR-4307-2023 (O&M) 3 2023:PHHC:154439
7. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground to
interfere is made out.
8. Hence, dismissed.
9. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are
also disposed of.
04.12.2023 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154439
3 of 3
