Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohan Singh Dehal vs Mulkh Raj & Ors on 19 December, 2014
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
CR No. 7369 of 2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
240 CR No. 7369 of 2014
Date of Decision: 19.12.2014
Mohan Singh Dehal
. . . . Petitioner
Vs.
Mulkh Raj and others
. . . .Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. P.S.Guliani, Advocate
for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
***
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to seek the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
***
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL)
This order shall dispose of two revision petitions bearing CR No.7369 of 2014 and CR No.7940 of 2014. However, the facts are being taken from CR No.7369 of 2014.
In brief, petitioner is the plaintiff who has filed the suit for specific performance against the three defendants. The trial Court granted ex-prate injunction on 23.08.2014. Defendant No.3 filed his written statement alleging that the plaintiff has not impleaded the actual owner, namely, Sh. Harjinder Singh Kandola.
Thereafter, the petitioner has filed two applications both under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC in order to implead Harjinder Singh Kandola as a party and to amend the proceedings accordingly. Both the applications have been allowed and Harjinder Singh SONIA GUGNANI 2014.12.24 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No. 7369 of 2014 2 Kandola has been ordered to be impleaded as a party. But at the same time, the trial Court vacated the ex- party injunction granted to the petitioner which led to the filing of the present revision petitions.
At the time of notice of motion, this Court had passed the following order:
"Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in suit for specific performance, he had impleaded three defendants and was granted ex parte injunction on 23.08.2014. Thereafter, written statement was filed by respondent No.3 alleging that plaintiff has not impleaded the true owner, namely, Sh. Harjinder Singh Kandola. As proposed, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for not only impleading the said persons, namely, Sh. Harjinder Singh Kandola but also to amend the pleadings accordingly. The said application was also allowed. However, vide impugned order dated 17.10.2014, the trial Court has vacated the ex parte stay on the representation of defendant No.3 and not on the representation of the newly added respondent on the ground that since the suit has been amended, therefore, the ex parte order passed earlier has automatically been vacated. It is submitted that once the stay has been granted by the trial Court even ex parte, it could not be vacated without notice to the plaintiff.
Notice of motion for 08.12.2014.
In the meantime, alienation of the suit property shall remain stayed."
Counsel for the respondents has submitted that he has no objection if the impugned order passed by the trial Court is set aside and a direction is issued to the trial Court to decide the application for injunction as early as possible. But, at the same time, he has raised an objection that SONIA GUGNANI 2014.12.24 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No. 7369 of 2014 3 the petitioner may not be allowed to amend the plaint as there is no such order passed by the trial Court nor the petitioner has disclosed as to what amendment is being sought in the plaint.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he may be granted liberty to file the plaint to disclose the particulars therein and at present, he may be allowed to pursue his application for stay with the ex parte injunction.
After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties and examining the available record, the present revision petitions are hereby disposed of by setting aside the order passed by the trial Court with a direction to decide the application for injunction at the first instance and till then the ex parte injunction granted earlier would continue. The petitioner, however, would have the liberty to file an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint which at least disclosing in his application as to what is the amendment he is seeking. The trial Court is directed to decide the application expeditiously.
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE 19th December, 2014 sonia g.
SONIA GUGNANI 2014.12.24 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document