Ram Bhaj vs Shri Davinder

L. N. Mittal

Plaintiff Ram Bhaj has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 12.12.2011 (Annexure P-5), passed by learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, thereby allowing application (Annexure P-3), moved by defendant-respondent for clarification/amendment of judgment dated 09.09.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by the same Court.

Plaintiff-petitioner moved application for temporary injunction in the suit filed by him against defendant-respondent. Learned trial court, vide order dated 15.01.2009 (Annexure P-1) dismissed the plaintiff''s application for temporary injunction. However, in appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the said order, learned lower appellate court, vide judgment Annexure P-2, allowed the plaintiff''s appeal and thereby allowed application for temporary injunction filed by plaintiff and restrained the defendant from alienating the suit property during pendency of the suit.

Defendant-respondent filed application Annexure P-3 for clarification/amendment of judgment Annexure P-2 alleging that under the garb of judgment Annexure P-2, the defendant was facing hardship in disposal of his other property and accordingly, the defendant prayed that description of the suit property be given in judgment Annexure P-2 by clarification/amendment. The said application has been allowed by the lower appellate court vide impugned order Annexure P-5 and thereby, description of the suit property, as mentioned by the plaintiff-petitioner himself in his suit, has been ordered to be added in judgment Annexure P-2. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant revision petition.

Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the entire property is still joint and has not yet been partitioned. This contention reveals the real intention of plaintiff-petitioner, which necessitated the filing of application Annexure P-3 by the defendant-respondent. Admittedly, the plaintiff-petitioner has filed suit relating to specific plot measuring 61 feet x 22 feet described by boundaries in the plaint. The suit is not regarding the alleged entire joint property, of which the suit plot is a part. The plaintiff sought temporary injunction regarding the suit plot only and not regarding the alleged entire joint property. Vide judgment Annexure P-2, lower appellate court granted temporary injunction regarding the suit property. Obviously, temporary injunction could be regarding the suit property only and not regarding the alleged entire joint property, which is not subject matter of the suit. However, under the garb of temporary injunction, the plaintiff was causing obstruction in disposal of some other property (which is not subject matter of the suit and to which temporary injunction does not apply) by the defendant-respondent. Consequently, defendant-respondent was forced to move application Annexure P-3. Lower appellate court has, therefore, rightly passed the impugned order to clarify the temporary injunction granted vide judgment Annexure P-2, which applies to only suit property measuring 61 feet x 22 feet, as described by boundaries by the plaintiff-petitioner himself in the plaint.

There is, therefore, no infirmity, much less perversity or illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the lower appellate court. On the other hand, the intention of the plaintiff-petitioner is completely dishonest and mala fide in opposing the aforesaid application of the defendant-respondent in the lower appellate court and in filing the instant revision petition, which is not only meritless but is completely frivolous and amounts to abuse of process of the Court.

Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed in limine.