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
integrity of this order/judgment.
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
integrity of this order/judgment.
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
integrity of this order/judgment.
