Surender vs Smt. Uma Devi And Others on 6 January, 2009

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH.

                                   C.R. No.7220 of 2008 (O&M)

                                   Date of Decision: 6.1.2009.

Surender
                                             ....Petitioner

           Versus

Smt. Uma Devi and others
                                              ...Respondents

CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal

Present:- Mr.Tara Chand Dhanwal, Advocate
          for the petitioner.

RAJESH BINDAL, J.

****

The present petition has been filed by the defendant No.1

against the order passed by the Courts below whereby in an

application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for stay, he has

been restrained from interfering in possession of the respondent

No.1/plaintiff over the suit land or demolishing the same in any

manner till the decision of the case.

The stand of the petitioner is that infact he is in

possession of the suit property for the last more than 12 years. The

possession is hostile to knowledge of general public and also to the

knowledge of the owners of the property. Respondent No.1-plaintiff

has purchased the property from Om Parkash who according to the

petitioner was not owner thereof. It was further submitted that the

property in dispute was being used by him as a nora. Both the

Courts below did not find any merit in the submission made by the

petitioner. As far as validity of the sale deed is concerned, the same
C.R. No.7220 of 2008 (O&M) -2-

is yet to be gone into after the parties lead their evidence. Local

Commissioner was appointed who submitted his report stating that it

is the gate of the house of the respondent No.1/plaintiff, which

opened towards the plot in dispute and no gate of the house of the

petitioner/defendant was opening towards plot in dispute.

At this stage of consideration of prayer for interim stay,

the Court has to see the prima-facie case and the balance of

convenience. In the present case, the respondent No.1/ plaintiff has

made out prima-facie case on the basis of a registered sale deed the

challenge thereto by the petitioner claiming that to be fictitious is yet

to be gone into by the Courts below. As against this there is no

document on record to show possession of the petitioner on the

property in dispute. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present

case and the same is dismissed.

                                          (RAJESH BINDAL)
6.1.2009                                      JUDGE
Reema