Sarabjit Singh vs Amandeep Singh and Others

Jaswant Singh, J.—Petitioner/Defendant No. 1 has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the order dated 8.3.2011 (P5) passed by Addl.Distt.Judge, Ferozepur, whereby parties have been directed to maintain status quo; and order dated 1.5.2010 (P3) passed Civil Judge (Junior Division) Abohar whereby the Petitioner has been restrained from changing the nature of the suit land by digging earth till final decision of the suit.

It is apparent that Respondents/Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the Defendant/Petitioner. It is case of the Respondents/Plaintiffs(3 LRs of Gurcharanjit Singh) that Smt. Har Kaur wife of late S. Sadda Singh died on 18.8.2005 leaving behind the suit property of which the Plaintiffs became owner in possession to the extent of 1/7 share in equal shares being LRs. of predeceased son Gurcharanjit of Smt. Har Kaur, who left behind five daughters and another son Satinderpal Singh. The mutation of inheritance was entered and attested on 29.8.2005. Petitioner/Defendant No. 1 son of Satinderpal Singh filed appeal against said order which was accepted on 30.1.2006 and same was sanctioned in favour of Defendant No. 1 alone on the basis of alleged Will dated 3.10.2001 allegedly executed by deceased Har Kaur. It was alleged by the Plaintiffs that Har Kaur had never executed any Will during her life time and Defendant No. 1/Petitioner in connivance with his father, scribe and witnesses managed the execution and registration of the said Will. It was further alleged by the Plaintiffs that taking undue advantage of mutation of inheritance in his favour Defendant No. 1/Petitioner intended to transfer the suit land and was threatening to change the nature of the suit land by digging the earth deeply. Alongwith the suit they had filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure. The suit as well as application was contested by the Defendant/Petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that the application was not maintainable during pendency of the suit and was misuse of process of court of law. The learned trial court after hearing both sides disposed of the application by restraining the Defendant from changing the nature of the suit land by digging earth till final disposal of the suit except in due course of law.

Aggrieved against the same Defendant No. 1/ Petitioner filed an appeal which was disposed of by the learned Addl.Distt.Judge vide impugned order dated 8.3.2011 by directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding the existing position of the suit property and the trial court was directed to dispose of the suit within a period of six months.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel that the Petitioner is owner in possession of the suit property and the revenue record is also in his favour hence the balance of convenience prima facie lies in his favour and as such the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, I find No. merit in the plea raised on behalf of the Petitioner.

While granting the interim injunction, it was observed by the learned trial court that the genuineness of the Will relied upon by the Defendant/Petitioner cannot be ascertained at this stage and the same needs recording of evidence. In these circumstances it was held that a prima facie case is made out in favour of the Plaintiffs as digging the earth from the suit property would cause irreparable loss to them and the very nature of the suit land would be changed.

As regards the order dated 8.3.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Distt.Judge, a perusal of the same reveals that the counsel for the Respondents/Plaintiffs had made a statement that he would have No. objection if the trial court was given a direction to dispose of the suit within six months. Accordingly, while directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding the existing position of the disputed property, the trial court was directed to dispose of the case within six months by affording limited opportunities to both the parties. The said period of six months is about to expire in next 14 days i.e. on 7.9.2011. In these circumstances, at this stage I do not deem it appropriate to interfere with the impugned orders.

For the reasons stated above, finding No. merit in this revision petition the same is hereby dismissed.