Mohan Lal vs State Of Haryana on 22 October, 2009

Civil Revision No.4665 of 2002                                1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


                                           Civil Revision No.4665 of 2002

                                            Date of Order: 22.10.2009



Mohan Lal                                                      ....Petitioner


                                     Versus

State of Haryana                                              ..Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

Present:- Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate
for the petitioner

Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate
for respondents no.3 to 6.

RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral).

The petitioner challenges orders dated 08.06.2002 and

16.08.2002, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palwal and the

Additional District Judge, Faridabad, dismissing his application for ad-

interim injunction and his appeal.

The petitioner, filed a suit for declaration that the sanad taksim

prepared by the Assistant Collector-IInd Grade, Palwal, is contrary to the

mode of partition. The petitioner also prayed for grant of an ad-interim

injunction to protect his possession. The respondents, opposed the grant

of an ad-interim injunction on the ground that as the sanad taksim has

attained finality the suit is not maintainable.

The trial court as also the first appellate court have declined the

prayer for injunction on the ground that in view of the sanction of a sanad

taksim the suit is not maintainable.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned

orders.

Civil Revision No.4665 of 2002 2

The question whether the suit is maintainable or whether a suit

can be filed to challenge a sanad taksim, is a matter to be decided during

the adjudication of the suit. The courts below have not rejected the plaint

on the ground that it is not maintainable. The petitioner’s prayer for grant

of an injunction to protect his possession should have, therefore, been

considered favourably as admittedly, he is in possession. The grant of an

injunction would prevent unnecessary complications, that would arise from

alteration of possessions. It would also be necessary to mention here that

while admitting the revision petition, parties were directed to maintain

status quo.

As a consequence, the revision petition is allowed, the order

passed by the courts below are set aside and it is directed that during the

pendency of the suit, parties shall maintain status quo with respect to

khasra Nos.14/1, 17/2, 23/2 and 24/1 contained in rectangle No.46 and

khasra Nos.3/3/1 and 4/1 contained in rectangle No.56.

October 22, 2009                                 (RAJIVE BHALLA)
nt                                                     JUDGE