Dharampal vs Smt. Phoolwati and Others

Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.—Invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned orders dated 14.8.2013 and 7.5.2014 (Annexure P-1 and P-2) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar and Additional District Judge, Hisar, respectively, vide which the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC in the suit filed by them against the defendants, was dismissed.

The plaintiffs had preferred a suit for seeking declaration to the effect that sale deed dated 30.3.2011 and revised sale deed of 21.4.2011 executed by his mother Smt. Laxmi in favour of defendant No. 1 regarding land measuring 06 Kanals 15 Marlas detailed in the plaint thereof as also subsequent mutations and revenue entries were wrong, illegal, null and void and were not binding on him. Further relief of permanent injunction seeking restraint against the defendants from alienating and transferring the land to any one was also sought.

In an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC, an interim relief during pendency of the suit was sought seeking restraint against the defendants regarding alienation of the suit property.

This prayer of the petitioner-plaintiff had found tough resistance against it from the respondents.

Neither the trial Court nor the Appellate Court found any prima-facie case in favour of the plaintiffs and having concluded that neither balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiffs nor any irreparable injury was likely to be caused to them, their prayer was concurrently rejected. Notwithstanding the fact that no merit was found, inter alia, in the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC filed by the plaintiffs, the said Court had a wholesome view of the matter in dispute and in a bid to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the Court had imposed certain restrictions on the defendants so far as matter of alienation of the suit property was concerned. The following findings of the learned lower Court in the impugned order are of relevance:-

However, to avoid the multiplicity of litigation, the defendants are specifically directed that if, they will alienate the suit property by way of sale, gift, exchange or in any other manner, they will inform the Court as to whom they have transferred their rights.

The Appellate Court concurring with the findings of the trial Court did not find any merit in the application of the plaintiffs and dismissed the appeal but taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case directed the lower Court to dispose of the suit within a stipulated period of time.

From both the orders impugned in this revision petition, it is clear that the Courts even though had concurrently found no merit in the case for interim relief to the plaintiffs by way of injunction against the defendants to restrain them from alienating the suit property, had sufficiently protected the lis to remain in the same state by imposing restrictions on alienations by the defendants and had also shown sufficient maturity by even fixing the time for final adjudication of the suit on merits.

No ground is made out to interfere in the well-merited orders of the Courts below.

Dismissed.