Punjab-Haryana High Court
Didar Singh vs Darshan Lal on 25 September, 2013
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
C.R.No.4540 of 2013 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
C.R.No.4540 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 25.09.2013
Didar Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
Darshan Lal ... Respondent
*****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
Present:- Mr. R.S.Pandher, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate,
for the respondent.
*****
L. N. MITTAL , J (ORAL)
C.M. No.19498-CII of 2013 Application is allowed. Annexures P-20 to P-22 are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. C.R.No.4540 of 2013
By filing this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, defendant has assailed order dated 21.12.2012 passed by the trial Court and order dated 19.07.2013 passed by the Lower Appellate Court thereby granting temporary injunction to the respondent-plaintiff and thereby restraining the defendant-petitioner from interfering in construction being raised by the plaintiff in the suit land.
I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
Vandana 2013.09.27 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.R.No.4540 of 2013 (O&M) 2
Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff pointed out that construction of double storey building by respondent-plaintiff in the suit land is already complete although finishing work is yet to be done. Counsel for the defendant-petitioner could not refute the aforesaid contention. Consequently, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the instant revision petition.
Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that Municipal Committee has already issued notice to the respondent-plaintiff regarding illegal construction of Ist floor raised by him. However, it would depict that according to Municipal Committee, construction of ground floor by the plaintiff is not illegal. In any event, this order shall have no bearing qua said notice.
Be that as it may, since respondent-plaintiff has already raised construction and is thus in posession of the suit property, temporary injunction has been rightly granted by the Courts below in his favour. There is, therefore, no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned orders passed by the Courts below so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Resultantly, I find that the revision petition is meritless. Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed. However, nothing in this order shall be construed to be expression of opinion on merits of the suit.
25.09.2013 (L.N.MITTAL)
vandana JUDGE
Vandana
2013.09.27 10:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document