Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pritam Nath vs Ved Parkash Gupta And Others on 22 July, 2010
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
Civil Revision No. 4519 of 2010 (O&M) [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 4519 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 22.7.2010
Pritam Nath .....Petitioner
Versus
Ved Parkash Gupta and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Shri Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral)
The plaintiff is aggrieved against the order passed by the first Appellate Court on 12.3.2010 in an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
The suit property is a vacant land in respect of which the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction. The application for ad-interim injunction was declined by the learned trial Court, but in appeal, it was found that the plaintiff has, prima-facie, succeeded in establishing his possession and the same needs to be protected. After returning such finding, the Court passed an order directing both the Civil Revision No. 4519 of 2010 (O&M) [2] parties to maintain status quo regarding possession, use, construction and ownership of the property.
Challenge by the present petitioner is to the part of the order on the ground that there is no specific restraint order against the defendants in interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. Therefore, the order passed by the learned trial Court needs to be modified.
As far as the plaintiff-petitioner is concerned, I do not find that he can have any grievance in respect of the order passed. The Court has found the plaintiff-petitioner in possession and consequently directed the parties to maintain status quo.
In view of the said fact, I do not find any patent illegality or material illegality in the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
Hence, the present petition is dismissed. However, it is clarified that passing of the present order shall not affect the rights of the defendants, in the event they challenge the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court in a revision petition.
[ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 22-07-2010 ds Civil Revision No. 4519 of 2010 (O&M) [3]