Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baljit Singh And Others vs Harwinder Singh And Another on 13 October, 2025
CR-7210-2025 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
134 CR-7210-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 13.10.2025
Baljit Singh and others ...Petitioner(s)
Vs.
Harwinder Singh and another ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. S.S.Sodhi, Advocate for
Mr. S.P.Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
Present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by defendants No. 1 to 4 seeking setting aside of the order dated 17.01.2020 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Amloh; whereby application filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC has been disposed of inter alia restraining the petitioners from using the electric motor connection in dispute till decision of present Civil Suit on merits; and restraining the petitioners from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. The appeal filed by the petitioners against the said order dated 17.01.2020 (Annexure P-2) has also been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib vide impugned order dated 18.12.2024 (Annexure P-1).
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 had filed a Civil Suit for permanent injunction against defendants No. 1 DIVYANSHI 2025.10.15 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7210-2025 (O&M) 2 to 4 and respondent No.2/performa defendant No.5 on 19.11.2019. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property has been partitioned on the basis of a Family Partition Deed dated 29.06.2018; whereafter the suit property has come into the share of the plaintiff vide Mutation Nos. 631 and 633. Plaintiff has become owner in possession of the suit property borne in Khasra No. 9//19 min.(1-11-1/2) and 12 min. (3-16). On the said property, there exists an electric connection No. AP11/499 on Khasra No. 9//12 and a tubewell which had fallen to the share of the plaintiff. However, as the defendant/petitioners were interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property, he had filed the present suit. Along with the suit, the plaintiff had also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, which has been allowed vide the impugned orders.
3. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that partial partition is not maintainable. It is submitted that the Courts below have failed to consider and appreciate that the alleged partial family partition has taken place on 29.06.2018 between the parties and no help has been taken from the revenue authorities as the respondent no.1/plaintiff is an educated and ex-serviceman, whereas the petitioners are illiterate farmers who have been duped by the plaintiff under the garb of partial family partition. The Courts have relied upon the entry of partial family partition and sanctioning of the mutation by taking the same as paramount evidence by ignoring the fact that on detecting the illegality and misrepresentation the plaintiff has submitted an Affidavit DIVYANSHI 2025.10.15 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7210-2025 (O&M) 3 on dated 11.07.2018/16.07.2018 (Annexure A-3) wherein plaintiff has admitted the ownership of the petitioners over the area measuring 15 ft. X 18 ft. out of Khasra no. 9//12 where the electric motor connection of 15 Hp has been installed in the name of Nachhatar Singh petitioner no.2 but the Courts below have illegally relied upon the alleged partial family partition dated 29.06.2018 and illegally discarded the affidavit dated 16.07.2018 executed by plaintiff causing miscarriage of justice to the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the Courts below have illegally passed the injunction order against the petitioners/defendants for not using the electric motor for irrigation installed in the name of defendant no.2 in part of Khasra no. 9//12 by ignoring the basic law of irrigation that the agriculture is solely based on resources of water irrigation and it is apparent from observations of the Courts below showing the non-application of judicious mind and as such the orders under challenge are liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, injunction could not have been granted in favour of the plaintiff.
5. No other argument is raised on behalf of the petitioners.
6. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file in detail.
7. I find no merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. A perusal of the record does not anywhere reveal that the petitioners have challenged Family Partition Deed dated 29.06.2018. Admittedly, the said electric connection No. AP11/499 as also tubewell in dispute are situated on Khasra No. 9//12 of Khewat No. DIVYANSHI 2025.10.15 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7210-2025 (O&M) 4 5/13. It has been concurrently found by both the Courts below that there is nothing at all on record to show that petitioners are in possession of any portion of the said suit property. As such, the 3 requirements for grant of injunction i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience; as also irreparable loss; are in favour of the plaintiff. Admittedly, the Partition Deed does not mention as to whom the said connection would devolve upon, and the electric motor connection is in the name of defendant Nachhatar Singh however, since the suit land has come into the share of the plaintiff in the partition dated 29.6.2018, therefore, the disputed electric motor connection being part and parcel of the land over which it is installed, would come into the share of the plaintiff. Moreover, admittedly, mutations have been sanctioned and entered in the names of the plaintiff pursuant to the said Family Partition Deed. The alleged affidavit dated 11.7.2018/16.07.2018 submitted by the plaintiff is yet to be proved in accordance with law.
8. Accordingly, present Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed.
9. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
13.10.2025 (NIDHI GUPTA)
Divyanshi JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
DIVYANSHI
2025.10.15 10:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document