Sher Singh vs Lakhvinder Singh and Another

G.S. Singhvi, J.—This application has been filed for review of the order dated 13.10.1995 whereby the Civil Revision No 3703 of 1995 filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

In a suit filed by the petitioner for permanent injunction against Lakhvinder Singh and Surat Singh, the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Pehowa, accepted the application filed by the petitioner under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC and passed an order of injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land in any manner till final decision of the case or till the expiry of the lease. In appeal, the learned District Judge Kurukshetra, reversed the findings of the learned trial Court and held that the evidence produced by the defendants clearly established their possession over the property and, therefore, there was no justification to pass an order of injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the Appellate Court accepted the appeal filed by the defendant-Lakhvinder Singh and dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner.

The revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order of the Appellant Court came to be dismissed by this Court on 13.10.1995.

The petitioner has sought review of the order dated 13.10.1995 on the ground that the review petitioner had filed an affidavit before the Appellant Court showing that Lakhvinder Singh was out of the country for last, one year and he had neither filed the appeal nor had engaged the counsel and the appeal filed before the District Judge was bogus and that this affidavit had not been considered by the Appellate Court.

Shri Bhag Singh, learned counsel for the review petitioner argued that due to mistake he could not produce the affidavit filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Court and as that affidavit is very material for the purpose of deciding the issue relating to injunction, this Court may now entertain the review petition and pass an order of injunction in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner. Shri S.P. Singh, learned, counsel appearing for the respondents, read out the statement contained in the plaint, injunction application and the affidavit filed by the petitioner and pointed out that the petitioner had sought injunction from the trial Court on the premise that the defendants, including Lakhvinder Singh, were interfering with his possession over the property and that this action of the defendant was wholly unauthorised. According to Shri S.P. Singh, the affidavit filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Court was per se false and contrary to the averments made in the plaint, injunction application and the supporting affidavit and such affidavit cannot be made basis for review of the order passed on 13.10.1995.

After having given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contention, I find substance in the argument of Shri S.P. Singh that the order dated 13.10.1995 does not call for review/reconsideration. It is true that the petitioner filed affidavit before the District Judge and asserted that respondent Lakhvinder Singh is in a, foreign country for last over one year but this affidavit of the petitioner is not worthy of reliance because in the plaint, injunction application and the accompanying affidavit, the plaintiff-petitioner has himself pleaded that the defendants, including Lakhvinder Singh, are interfering with his possession. If that is so how could the petitioner plead that Lakhvinder Singh has gone out of country for over one year. The petitioner took advantage of the averments made in the plaint, injunction application and the accompanying affidavit and now he cannot be now permitted to resile from that statement and to make out a new case to support the order of injunction passed by the trial Court.

The review petition is held to be misconceived and is, therefore, dismissed.