Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Santosh Devi vs Vasudev And Others on 11 October, 2010
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Civil Revision No.532 of 2010 -1-
******
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.532 of 2010
Date of decision:11.10.2010
Smt. Santosh Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
Vasudev and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. N.S.Sekhawat, Advocate,
for the respondents.
*****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court on 07.12.2009 in a suit for possession filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 [for short "the Act"].
The case set up by the plaintiffs is that plaintiff No.3 is running a flour mill in the shop bearing No.3126/111 after obtaining license from the Municipal Council since 11.04.2001 to 31.03.2007. It is further averred that on the night of 04.09.2006, northern wall of the shop of the flour mill was demolished by the defendants and the belongings of the plaintiffs, lying in the shop, were thrown out which led to filing of a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Rewari on 05.09.2006, which was forwarded by him to the Station House Officer, Police Station Model Town, Rewari. It is further averred that the plaintiffs had electricity connection bearing No.AJSP-23 in the name of plaintiff No.3 for the flour Civil Revision No.532 of 2010 -2- ****** mill and on the night of 09.09.2006, the defendants threw the flour mill (Aatta Chakki) outside the shop in question and disconnected the electric meter and also inflicted injuries to the plaintiffs. On this, a Calendera under Sections 104/107/151 was prepared. Plaintiff No.3 was called in the Police Station Model Town, Rewari where she was made to sit till evening on 10.09.2006. Since no action was taken, another application was moved on 11.09.2006 regarding dispossession, but on action was taken. Resultantly, the present suit was filed for restoration of the possession.
After notice issued to the defendants, defendant Nos.1 and 3 to 8 appeared and written statement was filed by defendant Nos.1, 3, 4 and 6 to 8. Defendant No.2 was given up by the plaintiffs on 22.03.2007 and defendant No.5 was proceeded against ex-parte on the same day. Defendant Nos.7 and 8 were also proceeded against ex-parte on 18.07.2007.
In the written statement filed by defendant No.1, it was alleged that possession of the property in dispute was handed over to him on 14.03.2006 by father of the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and husband of plaintiff No.3 which was sold to him and since thereafter, defendant No.1 has been running the business of plywood in the shop in dispute. He denied the alleged incident of 04.09.2006 and 09.09.2006. Defendant Nos.3, 4 and 6 filed their joint written statement. They also denied the alleged incident of 04.09.2006 and 09.09.2006. Defendant Nos.7 and 8 filed their joint written statement and alleged that the matter of disconnection of electric meter is a matter of record. They urged that there is no cause of action against them and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
The plaintiffs filed replication denying the averments made by the defendants in their written statements and reiterated the stand taken in the plaint. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed on 08.05.2007. Both the parties led their oral as well as documentary evidence. The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence available on the file, recorded a firm finding of fact to the effect that the plaintiffs were in possession of the shop in dispute who have been forcibly and illegally Civil Revision No.532 of 2010 -3- ****** dispossessed by the defendants on the night of 04.09.2006 and were, thus, entitled for restoration of the possession in terms of Section 6 of the Act.
In this revision petition, no material argument has been raised except for seeking relief on the basis of equity. I am afraid that in the face of voluminous evidence on record which proved the possession of the plaintiffs and their forcible dispossession at the hands of the defendants, the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court can not be interfered with. Hence, the present revision petition is found totally without any merit and as such, the same is hereby dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.
October 11, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE