CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Daulat Ram and Another vs Gopal Singh and Another

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 28 October 2010 · Citation: (2010) 10 SHI CK 0129

HON’BLE JUDGES
Surjit Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 39 Rule 1, Order 39 Rule 2
CASE NUMBER
Civil Revision No. 98 of 2010
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 384 words

Surjit Singh, J.—A suit has been filed by Respondents-Plaintiffs, seeking issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the Defendants-Petitioners from raising any construction on Khasra No. 135, which is alleged to be joint of both the parties. Alongwith the suit, an application, under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was filed for issuance of temporary injunction.

2.

Learned trial Court ordered the parties to maintain status quo, as regards possession and the nature of the suit property. Appeal filed by the Petitioners against the said order of temporary injunction has been dismissed. They have now filed the present revision petition.

3.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

4.

It is stated by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that partition of the property has been ordered by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade and now appeal is pending before the Divisional Commissioner.

5.

Khasra No. 135 is recorded as Gair Mumkin Abadi and in exclusive possession of the present Petitioners. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners states that almost entire area of Khasra No. 135 has been covered under the abadi of the Petitioners and only a small portion of it is lying vacant. He says that no new construction is intended to be raised on any portion of Khasra No. 135. According to him, in the garb of the impugned order of maintenance of status quo, the Respondents are interfering in the peaceful enjoyment of the vacant portion of Khasra No. 135, which is in Petitioners'' exclusive possession, as per entries in Jamabandi.

6.

In the Jamabandi, Khasra No. 135 is shown to be Gair Mumkin Abadi and in exclusive possession of the present Petitioners. In view of this entry in the revenue papers, including Jamabandi, and the submission made by the Petitioners that they do not intend to raise any construction on the vacant portion of Khasra No. 135, it is ordered that Defendants-Petitioners being shown in exclusive possession of the suit land in the Jamabandi, no interference in their possession will be caused, but they shall not change the nature of the suit property, by raising any new construction, pending disposal of the suit filed in the trial Court.

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.