Hussan Lal vs Krishna Devi

G.S. Singhvi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order dated 9.12.1994 passed by the Sub Judge Second Class, Hoshiarpur and the order dated 27.7.1995 passed by the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur. Without considering the pleadings of the parties and without applying the principles which govern the exercise of discretion by a Court for determining the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC and in a most cursory manner, the trial Court passed an order of injunction in favour of the petitioner. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge took note of the fact that although the Plaintiff had come forward with the plea that he is co-owner/co-sharer in the disputed property he himself had raised construction without the partition of the disputed property and, therefore, it was not open to him to seek equitable relief of injunction from the court.

In my opinion, the interference by the learned Additional District Judge was not only desirable but was the only appropriate course which could be adopted by appellate Court to upset the perfunctory order passed by the trial court granting injunction in favour of the petitioner.

The revision petition is without substance and is, therefore, dismissed.