Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GURMIT SINGH versus BACHITTAR SINGH

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Gurmit Singh v. Bachittar Singh - CR-679-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 3050 (10 May 2006)

Civil Revision No.679 of 2006 -: 1 :-

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Revision No.679 of 2006

Date of decision: May 12, 2006.

Gurmit Singh

...Petitioner(s)

v.

Bachittar Singh

...Respondent(s)

Present: Shri B.S. Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

This revision petition has been preferred by the defendant against the order dated 11.8.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar. Vide an order dated 1.11.2004, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar had dismissed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC moved by the respondent-plaintiff which has, however, been accepted by the learned first appellate court.

A perusal of the impugned order dated 11.8.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar reveals that the respondent- plaintiff has been consistently shown in exclusive possession of the suit property.

The learned first appellate court has also taken notice of the fact that the partition proceedings are going on between the parties. The first appellate court took the view that since the respondent-plaintiff is, prima-facie, in exclusive possession of the suit land measuring 16 kanal 10 Civil Revision No.679 of 2006 -: 2 :-

marls, his possession qua the said piece of land deserves to be protected by restraining the petitioner-defendant from interfering in possession of the respondent-plaintiff over the said piece of land and not to dispossess him except in due course of law.

Having regard to the limited scope of interference by a revisional court in ad-interim injunction matters, especially when the prima- facie view formed by the learned first appellate court appears to be plausible, no case for interference is made out.

Dismissed.

May 12, 2006. [ Surya Kant ]

kadyan Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.