Rajbir Singh And Another vs Rajbir And Others on 16 October, 2012

[Cites 3, Cited by 3]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rajbir Singh And Another vs Rajbir And Others on 16 October, 2012

Bench: T.P.S.Mann

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH


                                CR No.6166 of 2012
                                Date of decision: 16.10.2012

Rajbir Singh and another
                                                                ... Petitioners

                                   Versus
Rajbir and others
                                                               ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN

Present :   Mr.Ashwani Gaur, Advocate
            for the petitioners.

T.P.S.Mann, J. (Oral)

The application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for restraining defendant Nos.5 and 6 from interfering in his share over the suit property, was allowed by the trial Court. Aggrieved of the same, defendants Nos.5 and 6 filed an appeal but remained unsuccessful in the same. Said defendants are now in revision before this Court, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Both the Courts below, after considering the arguments raised on behalf of the parties, had found a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff. The plea of the petitioners that they had taken possession of the suit land on 16.7.2011 was not pressed either before the trial Court or the lower appellate Court. Therefore, the said plea cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Esha Ekta Appartments CHS Limited and others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai and another," (2012) 4 Supreme Court Cases 689, has held that the discretion exercised by the Court of first instance should not be interfered with by the appellate Court CR No.6166 of 2012 [2] by substituting its own discretion unless discretion exercised is shown to be arbitrary or capricious or perverse or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions.

I have perused the orders passed by the Courts below and find that they are based upon proper appraisal of the material available before the courts below.

In view of the above, there is no merit in the revision which, is accordingly, dismissed.




                                                       ( T.P.S. MANN )
October 16, 2012                                           JUDGE
sd

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court