CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Manjinder Singh vs Gurdev Singh alias Gurmeet Singh

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 2 May 2011 · Citation: (2011) 05 P&H CK 0114

HON’BLE JUDGES
Jaswant Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 39 Rule 1, Order 39 Rule 2 · Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 227
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
CR No. 2542 of 2011 (O and M)
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

6 paragraphs · 289 words

Jaswant Singh, J.—CM No. 11113-CII/2011 allowed. Sale deeds dated 29.3.2005 and 19.12.2005 (Colly.) and written statement dated 1.4.2006 are taken on record as Annexures P7 and P8.

CR No. 2542/2011

2.

Present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed by the Defendant/Petitioner against the order dated 18.5.2009 (P4) whereby on an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure, Petitioner has been directed to maintain status quo regarding the nature, possession and construction qua the suit property, which admittedly has not been partitioned, during the pendency of the suit; as also the order dated 23.2.2011 (P5) whereby the appeal against the aforesaid order has also been dismissed.

3.

Learned Counsel for the Defendant/Petitioner has argued that the Petitioner/Defendant No. 1-Manjinder Singh had become owner in exclusive possession of the suit land pursuant to the sale deed dated 29.3.2005. He contends that though the land having not been partitioned but the Petitioner-Manjinder Singh being owner in exclusive possession could not be restrained from raising construction at the behest of a co-sharer. In support he relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Bachan Singh v. Swaran Singh 2000 3 PLR 416. It is thus contened that both the courts below have erred in passing order restraining the Defendant/Petitioner.

4.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, this Court is not inclined to interfere in view of the admitted fact that Defendant/Petitioner had subsequently vide sale deed dated 19.12.2005 sold off his right, title and interest in the joint land to subsequent vendee and thus, in the absence of any subsisting interest in the property, in my view this revision petition cannot be entertained on his behalf.

5.

Dismissed.