Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAKESH KUMAR versus JARNAIL SINGH SARPANCH & ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Rakesh Kumar v. Jarnail Singh Sarpanch & Ors. - CR-341-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 4334 (18 July 2006)

Civil Revision No.341 of 2006 -: 1 :-

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

Civil Revision No.341 of 2006

Date of decision: July 14, 2006.

Rakesh Kumar

...Petitioner(s)

v.

Jarnail Singh Sarpanch & Ors.

...Respondent(s)

Present: Shri Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the Gram Panchayat alleging himself to be in possession of the property in dispute on the basis of pattanama. He also moved an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for the grant of interim injunction. An injunction order was passed in his favour restraining the defendants from interfering in the plaintiff-petitioner's possession over 68 kanals land.

Alleging violation of the injunction order, the petitioner moved an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC against Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and other persons. His application, however, was dismissed by the trial court after holding that the crop harvested by the defendants was from the land which was owned by the Gram Panchayat and was having different Khasra Numbers. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order which has also been dismissed by the District Judge, gurdaspur Civil Revision No.341 of 2006 -: 2 :-

vide order dated 1.10.2005. Aggrieved, the petitioner-plaintiff has preferred this revision petition.

After hearing Learned Counsel for the petitioner and having regard to the concurrent finding of fact by both the courts that the crops were sown and harvested by the respondents on the land which is owned by the Gram Panchayat and its Khasra numbers were different than the land measuring 68 kanals, which was let out to the petitioner, no case for interference is made out.

Dismissed.

July 14, 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.