CR No.656 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.656 of 2009
Date of decision: 5.2.2009
Dev Kaur alias Baljinder Kaur ......Petitioner
Versus
Chhajju Khan and another ......Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present: Mr. Bhavyadeep Walia, Advocate for the petitioner.
* * *
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
Through this revision petition defendant No.1 has challenged
the order dated 18.5.2006 passed by the District Judge, Patiala whereby
order dated 2.3.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Nabha on
an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC
declining the interim stay has been set aside and application for ad interim
stay filed by the plaintiff-respondent has been accepted and the petitioner
has been restrained from alienating the suit land in any manner during the
pendency of the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell
dated 15.4.2005 filed by the plaintiff against him.
Respondent-Chajju Khan filed a civil suit for specific
performance of an agreement dated 15.4.2005 which the petitioner alleges
to be an act of forgery on the part of the plaintiff-respondent. Along with
the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell in question the
plaintiff-respondent filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
restraining the petitioner from alienating the suit land during the pendency
of the suit. The aforesaid application was rejected by the trial Court.
However, on an appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent, the order dated
CR No.656 of 2009 2
2.3.2006 passed by the trial Court rejecting his application for ad interim
stay was set aside and the petitioner was restrained from alienating the
suit land during the pendency of the suit vide order dated 18.5.2006.
Feeling aggrieved therefrom, the present revision petition has been filed by
the defendants in this Court on 19.1.2009 i.e. after a lapse of 2 years 8
months.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that
there is no prima facie case existing in favour of the plaintiff-respondent as
the alleged agreement in question is an act of forgery and a criminal case
stands registered against the respondent and further, the petitioner has
also filed a civil suit challenging the aforesaid agreement in question and
thus, no case is made out for grant of ad interim stay in favour of the
plaintiff-respondent and the District Judge, Patiala has erred in law and
failed to appreciate all these vital points in favour of the petitioner.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. However, I find
no merit in this petition.
Whether the agreement in question is an act of forgery or not,
can only be decided after adducing evidence and simply because the
petitioner has filed a criminal case against the plaintiff-respondent or has
challenged the aforesaid agreement to sell in question by a separate suit,
does not mean that the plaintiff-respondent has no prima facie case in his
favour? Moreover, the petitioner has failed to give any explanation for
filing this revision petition challenging the order dated 18.5.2006 after a
delay of 2 years and 8 months. The petitioner has failed to state the status
of the case pending before the trial Court. It is well settled that this Court
should not ordinarily interfere in the discretion exercised by the Courts
below in the case of grant of ad interim injunction unless an error of
jurisdiction or a material irregularity has been committed by the Courts
CR No.656 of 2009 3
below. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to find any such fault
with the impugned order of the Lower Appellate Court.
Dismissed.
February 5, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE