Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mehar Singh Son Of Soran Singh vs Ram Diya Verma on 22 November, 2013
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
C.R. No.3166 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.3166 of 2012
Date of Decision.22.11.2013
2. C.R. No.3205 of 2012
Mehar Singh son of Soran Singh .......Petitioner
Versus
Ram Diya Verma ......Respondent
Present: Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Dr. Sushil Gautam, Advocate
for the respondent.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? No
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No
-.-
K. KANNAN J. (ORAL)
1. Both the revision petitions are at the instance of the defendant against whom an interim injunction was issued by the Appellate Court in reversal of the judgment of the trial Court. The respondent is the plaintiff seeking for specific performance of alleged agreements executed by the 1st defendant in his favour. The agreements were denied as brought about by forgery and it was the defence that some security agreements have been fabricated by the plaintiff to make them appear as though that they are enforceable agreements. The plaintiff's case for injunction was rested on a recital in the agreement that the property had been delivered possession of. If the agreement was admitted, a recital in the agreement could be an Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2013.11.25 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.R. No.3166 of 2012 -2- important piece of evidence for the plaintiff to contend that he has prima facie case of possession. If the agreement itself is denied, the plaintiff has to prove his possession aliunde. With no such proof available, the lower Appellate Court was in error in referring to a sale deed executed by the 1st defendant to 2nd defendant as suspicious and therefore, the plaintiff must be entitled to relief of injunction. The injunction is secured by the plaintiff on a proof of his prima facie case of possession and is not dependent on how the 1st defendant has acted in his transaction subsequently by a transfer to the second defendant. The parameter applied was wholly unacceptable, erroneous and bound to be set aside.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent wants to rely on some evidence collected during the course of trial. Injunction will be issued on the basis of materials brought at the time when the suit was instituted and not when the evidence was collected during the course of trial. It will be impermissible for a respondent to produce any new document to support his plea which cannot be secured through the reasoning otherwise during the course of trial.
3. The orders passed by the lower Appellate Court are set aside revision petitions are allowed.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 22, 2013 Pankaj* Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2013.11.25 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh