Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sajjan Singh & Ors vs Ram Kishan & Ors on 27 March, 2014
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Civil Revision No.2289 of 2014 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.2289 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 27.3.2014
Sajjan Singh & Ors. ......Petitioners
Versus
Ram Kishan & Ors. .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
Present: Mr.Shashi Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners.
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision petition, preferred by Sajjan Singh son of Maha Singh and others petitioners-plaintiffs (for brevity "the plaintiffs"), is to the impugned order dated 18.5.2011 (Annexure P2), by virtue of which, the trial Court has dismissed their application for ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC filed by them in a suit for permanent injunction and the impugned order dated 23.12.2013 (Annexure P3), by means of which, their appeal was dismissed as well, by the appellate Court.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs, going through the record with his valuable help and considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition in this respect.
3. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that since the Courts below have ignored the rough site plan annexed with the plaint, so, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside, lacks merit. Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.04.05 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No.2289 of 2014 (O&M) 2
4. As is evident from the record that initially, the plaintiffs have instituted the civil suit for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining Ram Kishan son of Shiv Lal and others respondents-defendants (for short "the defendants") from demolishing/removing the wall in dispute. The plaintiffs did not produce any material, except the rough site plan in order to substantiate their plea contained in the plaint. Mere production of rough site plan is not sufficient to grant the injunction to them. On the contrary, the defendants claimed that the plaintiffs are trying to encroach upon their passage. Taking into consideration the fact that plaintiffs have miserably failed either to prove prima facie case or balance of convenience in their favour for lack of sufficient material, the trial Court has dismissed their injunction application, by way of impugned order (Annexure P2).
5. Not only that, the order of trial Court was upheld by the appellate Court, through the medium of impugned order (Annexure P3), which, in substance, is as under (Para 14):-
"I am of the considered view that there is no force in the contentions raised by the counsel for the Appellants. Appellants have not produced any document on the record to prove prima facie that the passage in question marked by letters 1JEF, belongs to them. It appears that Respondents have been using this passage and Appellants have constructed a wall thereby closing the gate at point X. Prima facie Appellants have no right to close the gate. I am of the considered view that the lower Court has rightly dismissed the injunction application. I hereby affirm the same. There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. There would be no order as to costs. Needless to mention, this order does not reflect my opinion on the merits of the present case. Lower Court's record alongwith a copy of this order be sent back to the quarter concerned. The parties are directed to appear before the lower Court on 3.1.2014. Appeal file be consigned to the record room after due compliance."
6. Meaning thereby, the Courts below have examined the matter in right perspective and have concurrently recorded the cogent grounds in this context. Such orders, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.04.05 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No.2289 of 2014 (O&M) 3 interfered with, in the exercise of superintendence power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same are illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioners, so, the impugned orders deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
7. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
8. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of main suit, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs is hereby dismissed as such.
9. Needless to mention that nothing observed here-in-above would reflect on the merits of the case, in any manner, as the same has been so recorded for the limited purpose of deciding the present petition only.
Sd/-
(Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge 27.3.2014 AS Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.04.05 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh