Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurlabh Singh And Another vs Ramandeep Kaur And Another on 13 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036604
CR-1523-2024 (O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:036604
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
130 CR-1523-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision:13.03.2024
Gurlabh Singh & another ... Petitioners
Vs.
Ramandeep Kaur & another ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.
Present: Mr. H.S. Saini, Advocate for the petitioners.
...
SUKHVINDER KAUR, J. (ORAL).
1. The instant revision petition has been filed by the
plaintiffs/petitioners against the order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the Civil
Judge (Sr. Division), SAS Nagar, Mohali, whereby an application filed by
the petitioners under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC
seeking grant of ex-parte ad interim injunction has been rejected.
2. Brief facts that are required for disposal of the instant revision
petition are that the petitioners filed a suit for recovery of Rs.41,70,000/- i.e.
Rs.36 lakhs as principal and Rs.5,70,000/- as interest @ 6% per annum from
05.06.2017 to 05.06.2021 along with future interest from the date of filing of
the suit till realization. In the said suit, respondents/defendants did not
appear and were proceeded against ex-parte by the trial Court and it was ex-
parte decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.07.2022,
holding that the petitioners were entitled to recover the principal amount of
Rs.36 lakhs along with interest @ 6% per annum from the respondents from
the due date till the filing of the suit and they were also held entitled to the
future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decision of the suit till the
actual realization. Petitioners filed Execution Application No.14 of 2023
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036604
CR-1523-2024 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:036604
before the Executing Court, SAS Nagar, Mohali in which again the
respondents did not appear for contesting the said application. The
Executing Court issued warrants of attachment of the property of
respondents vide order dated 05.07.2023. When the respondents came to
know about the attachment of the property in the execution proceedings,
then they filed an application for stay of proceedings of the execution
application. Respondents also filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13
CPC seeking setting aside of the ex-parte judgment and decree dated
30.07.2022. The Executing Court during the pendency of the application
filed by the respondents under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC seeking setting aside of
the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 30.07.2022 vide order dated
25.09.2023 stayed the execution proceedings while ordering the same to be
tagged with the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. In order to frustrate
the execution proceedings for recovering the huge decretal amount by way
of attachment of the property of the respondents, respondent were bent upon
selling, encumbering, mortgaging or transferring in any manner the suit
property. So the plaintiffs/petitioners filed Civil Suit No.164 of 2024 titled
as 'Gurlabh Singh & another Vs. Ramandeep Kaur & another' seeking decree
of permanent injunction from restraining the respondents/defendants from
selling, encumbering, mortgaging or transferring in any manner the land
which is the subject matter of the said suit as the plaintiffs/petitioners were
apprehending that the respondents/defendants may further alienate the suit
property in order to frustrate the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2022 and
the third party rights. The petitioners along with the aforesaid suit also filed
an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036604
CR-1523-2024 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:036604
seeking grant of ex-parte ad interim injunction for restraining the defendants
from selling, encumbering, mortgaging or transferring in any manner the suit
property but vide the impugned order dated 05.03.2024, the trial Court
illegally and arbitrarily declined the grant of ex-parte injunction at this stage
and issued notice of the suit as well as of the application filed under Order
39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC to the defendants. Aggrieved of the said order, the
present revision petition has been filed at the hands of the
petitioners/plaintiffs.
3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that
the trial Court has illegally not granted the ex-parte injunction to the
petitioners before hearing the opposite party. The respondents have
succeeded in alienating the part measuring 3 bighas out of the suit property
in favour of Marigold Infotech Private Limited Chandigarh vide registered
sale deed dated 04.03.2024. He has argued that the petitioners have came to
know that the respondents are likely to execute the other sale deed on
11.03.2024 of the property which is already under attachment in the
execution proceedings in the suit for recovery, decreed in favour of the
petitioners and the petitioners would not be able to get the money recovered
from the respondents and the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2022 passed
in favour of the petitioners would become un-executable and the suit filed by
the petitioners would also be rendered infructuous.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at length and
have perused the records.
5. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that vide the impugned
order dated 05.03.2024, the trial Court has observed that no ground is made
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036604
CR-1523-2024 (O&M) -4- 2024:PHHC:036604
out for granting the ex-parte injunction at this stage and the trial Court
deemed it fit to hear the opposite party before passing any interim order and
notice of such suit as well as application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2
CPC had been ordered to be issued. So only at this stage the ex-parte
injunction has been declined and notice of the suit as well application filed
under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC has already been issued to the respondents.
6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioners has submitted that he would be satisfied if a direction is issued to
the trial Court to decide the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2
CPC in a time bound manner.
7. So, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present
case, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the application filed under
Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC as per law, within a period of one month from
the date of the defendants make appearance before the trial Court. However,
if the defendants are not served for the date fixed before the trial Court, then
petitioners will get the service effected at their own responsibility.
8. Till the disposal of the application filed by the petitioners under
Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC by the trial Court, the status quo regarding
alienation be maintained.
9. Revision petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
10. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of
accordingly.
( SUKHVINDER KAUR )
13.03.2024 JUDGE
harjeet
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
2. Whether reportable? Yes/No
4 of 4
