Civil Revision No. 3819 of 2009 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 3819 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 10.11.2009
Ram Singh and others
......petitioners
Versus
Kulwinder Singh and others
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Amrik Singh, Advocate.
for the petitioners.
Mr.Sanjay Gupta, Advocate,
for the respondents.
****
SABINA, J.
The respondents filed a civil suit for possession. Their
suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated
5.11.2007. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs-respondents preferred
an appeal. In appeal, vide the impugned order dated 5.6.2009,
learned Additional District Judge directed the respondents to furnish
particulars with regard to length and breadth of the boundaries of the
property in dispute so that substantial justice could be done between
Civil Revision No. 3819 of 2009 (O&M) 2
the parties. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed by the
defendants-petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
Appellate Court had erred in directing the plaintiffs to furnish length
and breadth of the boundaries because the suit of the plaintiffs was
dismissed because they had failed to disclose the boundaries of the
property in dispute.
Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,
has submitted that the boundaries of the property in dispute had
been given by the plaintiffs but the measurement of the property
could not be given.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the
opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
Learned Additional District Judge, in the impugned order
has observed that the boundaries of the suit property had already
been detailed in the plaint but the measurement of the boundaries,
however, were not mentioned. The duty of the Court is to do
substantial justice between the parties and in order to determine lis
between the parties more effectively, the plaintiffs-respondents were
directed to furnish the measurement of the property in dispute. In
terms of the impugned order, the plaintiffs-respondents have already
furnished the measurement of the property in dispute. The plaintiffs
had filed the suit for possession basing their claim on the registered
gift deed dated 2.6.1931 executed by Roop Devi in favour of Punjab
Civil Revision No. 3819 of 2009 (O&M) 3
kaur. Mewa Singh deceased was son of Punjab Kaur. Mewa Singh
died on 8.11.1998 and thereafter, the plaintiffs were owner in
possession of the suit property. However, defendants took forcible
possession of the suit property on 21.12.2000. Learned trial Court
held that the gift deed executed by Roop Devi in favour of her
daughter Punjab Kaur stood duly proved. However, it was held that
the plaintiffs were not entitled to get the possession of the suit
property as they had failed to disclose the length and breadth of the
property in dispute. The site plan, proved on record by the plaintiff
did not depicts length and breadth of the property. In the facts and
circumstances of the present case, learned Additional District Judge,
with a view to impart justice between the parties, has directed the
plaintiffs-respondents to disclose the measurement of the property in
dispute as the boundaries have already been disclosed by the
plaintiffs-respondents in the plaint. Substantial justice has been
done between the parties.
Hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any
material irregularity and illegality warranting interference by this
Court.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
(SABINA)
JUDGE
November 10 , 2009
anita