Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Anesh Kumar vs Harkesh And Others on 17 August, 2010

Author: Hemant Gupta

Bench: Hemant Gupta

Civil Revision No. 5113 of 2010 (O&M)                                  [1]




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                         CHANDIGARH


                                   Civil Revision No. 5113 of 2010 (O&M)
                                          Date of Decision: 17.8.2010


              Anesh Kumar                                       .....Petitioner

                           Versus

              Harkesh 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 R.S. Sangwan, Advocate, for the petitioner.



Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral)

Defendant-Anesh Kumar is in revision aggrieved against the order passed by the learned trial Court on 17.4.2010 and the order in appeal dated 25.5.2010, whereby an application for ad- interim injunction was allowed and the defendants were restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff-respondent.

Earlier, the defendant-petitioner filed a suit for possession. Said suit was dismissed on 22.4.1993. Both the Courts below have relied upon the factum of dismissal of the suit for Civil Revision No. 5113 of 2010 (O&M) [2] possession filed by the petitioner to return a finding that the plaintiff- respondent is in possession and is entitled to protect his possession.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the defendant as an owner, is in possession of the suit property and that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration claiming title over the suit property, but has withdrawn the same. Therefore, as owner, the possession is deemed to be that of the petitioner.

I do not find any merit in the said argument. The fact that the suit for possession filed by the petitioner has been dismissed is not disputed. The filing of the suit itself shows that the petitioner admitted the plaintiff (defendant in the earlier suit) to be in possession of the suit property. The said fact alone is sufficient to grant ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff.

The question whether the plaintiff has subsequently delivered possession to the defendant or not, as sought to be argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is a disputed question of fact and is required to be examined on the basis of the evidence to be led by the parties. However, prima-facie, the factum of dismissal of the suit for possession is sufficient to return a finding that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and thus, entitled, to ad-interim injunction.

Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the Courts below, which may warrant interference by this Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

Hence the present petition is dismissed.

[ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 17.8.2010 ds