Punjab-Haryana High Court
Veer Singh And Ors. vs Udham Singh on 10 February, 1999
Equivalent citations: (1999)121PLR598
Author: Swatanter Kumar
Bench: Swatanter Kumar
JUDGMENT Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. The learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, vide order dated 17.1.1998 dismissed an appeal preferred by Veer Singh and others, defendants in the suit, challenging the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 1.9.1997 granting injunction to the plaintiff as prayed. Udham Singh, plaintiff had filed a suit against the aforestated defendants for declaration with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction.
2. As averred, the plaintiff and the defendants were co-sharers in joint possession of the suit property as per jamabandi for the year 1994-95. Some dispute arose between the parties in relation to the land in question in the year 1991. Arbitrators were appointed and they gave their award stating that defendants were in possession of the land more than their share and as such, the possession came in favour of the plaintiff. The suit was contested by the defendants and they also disputed the very claim of the plaintiff that plaintiff was a co-sharer.
3. Alongwith the suit an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the plaintiff which was opposed by the defendants. The learned trial Court vide its detailed order dated 1.9.1997 allowed the application and restrained the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land during the pendency of the suit. This order was unsuccessfully assailed in appeal by the defendants in appeal. Consequently, the present revision has been filed against the order of the learned Ist Appellate Court. The main thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the latest Khasra girdawari which was placed on record, the appellants were shown to be in possession of the suit land, and as such the learned Courts have erred in expressing a prima facie view against the defendants, in the suit.
4. At the very outset it needs to be noticed that the Khasra girdawari on the basis of which the arguments have been advanced cannot be considered. The reason for exclusion of this document from the zone of consideration at this stage is two fold. Firstly, the entries in this khasra girdawari were made without notice to the plaintiff and without any proper enquiry. Secondly, the plaintiff had filed an application for correction of the khasra girdawari for the periods 25.10.1997 for the crops Sawni and Hari. It has been noticed on this document that vide report No. 245 dated 8.3.1998 the entry has been corrected in the name of Udham Singh, plaintiff. It has also come on record that the defendants had earlier filed a suit for injunction and the same was dismissed. A copy of the order of dismissal has been placed on record.
5. Another factor of which the Court should take due notice is that a suit between the co-owners including the present co-owners was filed in the year 1997 being suit No. 209 of 1997 titled as Veer Singh and Ors. v. Ajit Singh and Ors. In that suit an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 has been filed which was allowed and the parties were directed to maintain status quo in terms of the order dated 31.1.1998. It will be appropriate to refer to the relevant part of the order which showed that the plaintiff in the present suit (defendant in that suit) was in possession of the land, it runs as under:-
"After the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for permanent injunction is also dismissed because he failed to lead any evidence and to prove his case and the judgment and decree of which the suit has become final and plaintiff has not preferred any appeal against said judgment and decree.
Therefore, seen from any angle the defendant at this stage prove themselves to be in possession of the khasra numbers 762 and 763 and at any rate."
6. While deciding an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Cods of Civil Procedure, the Court has to form a prima facie view based upon the pleadings of the parties and documents filed by them in support of their respective case. The corrected khasra girdawari, award dated 13.3.1991, dismissal of the suit earlier filed by the present defendant and the order of the Court dated 31.1.1998 are the documents which would constitute a substantial ground for the Court to come to a prima facie conclusion favourable to the plaintiff. Repeated attempts by a party to frustrate the due process of law in normal course would amount to abuse of process of law at the hands of that party. Having gone to Court on various occasions as plaintiff or defendant, the stand of the present defendant has always been different than the one taken in the earlier proceedings. It was obligatory on the part of the defendant to disclose all the previous litigation fairly and honestly before the trial Court in the present case. Denial simplicitor does not absolve the defendant of the responsibility on his part. Every party to a litigation before the Court is obliged to bring true and correct facts and all necessary documentary evidence in its possession before the Court. A party who omits to discharge its obligation can never claim relief in equity.
7. For the reasons aforestated, I would have no hesitation to predicate the view expressed by the learned Courts below. I see no error in the orders impugned. Consequently, this revision is dismissed without any orders as to costs.
8. Petition dismissed.