IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No. 4008 of 2009
Date of Decision: 18.8.2009
Kanwaljit Singh and others ....Petitioners.
Versus
Smt. Amarjit Kaur and another ...Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
PRESENT: Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the plaintiff-petitioners have challenged the order
dated 6.4.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the trial court whereby the
application filed by them under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of
Civil Procedure was dismissed and also the order dated 2.6.2009
(Annexure P-2) vide which, on appeal, that order was affirmed by the
lower appellate court.
The trial court while dismissing the application for ad
interim injunction of the plaintiff-petitioners had, in para 9 of its order,
recorded as under:-
“9. Plaintiffs have failed to bring on record any
cogent piece of evidence at this stage regarding their
possession over any specific portion of the land. At
this stage, it cannot be decided as to whether any
alleged oral family settlement was entered into in
favour of plaintiffs by defendant No.1. This fact is a
CR No. 4008 of 2009 -2-matter of evidence. Defendants have produced letter
dated 21.1.2000 in which daughter of plaintiff no.3
has assured the defendant of taking due care of their
property. If plaintiff no.3 has sold the property
measuring 250 sq. yards, she could do so qua her
own share. I agree with the contention raised by Ld.
counsel for defendants that every co-owner is entitled
to every inch of the suit land and has a right to use
the joint property in a husband like manner. At this
stage, it is not clear from the perusal of the record as
to who is in possession of which specific share of the
suit land. Therefore, it will not be appropriate to pass
injunction order as sought by the plaintiffs.”
The said order of the trial court was affirmed on appeal by
the lower appellate court.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and
perusing the file, this Court is of the opinion that there being uncertainty
regarding possession of the plaintiffs over any specific portion of the suit
land, no ground for interference with the orders impugned herein by this
Court in its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is
made out.
Dismissed.
Nothing observed in this order shall be construed to be an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
August 18, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE