Karam Singh v. Garib Dass & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 28 Jul 2011
- Bench
- ARVIND KUMAR
Provisions considered
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3788 of 2011 Date of Decision: 28.07.2011 *** .. Petitioner Karam Singh Vs. Garib Dass & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. By virtue of impugned order dated 12.5.2011, police help has been ordered to be provided to the respondents-defendants, for implementation of injunction order dated 4.10.2008, passed on the counter- claim filed by the defendants. Heard. It is apparent from records that the injunction application of the plaintiff-petition was dismissed while in the counter-claim the plaintiff was restrained from interfering into possession of defendants over the passage in question, till the disposal of suit. However, the impugned order reveals that the plaintiff kept on violating the injunction order, for which proceedings under Order 39 Rule-2 were carried out and during the hearing of the application under Section 151 CPC, upon which the impugned order has been passed, a revenue officer was appointed as local commissioner, who also reported the action of merging the said passage by the plaintiff into his own fields. Consequently, the learned trial Court, in order to implement the injunction order, rightly passed the impugned order. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The revision petition, being without merit, is accordingly dismissed in limine. July 28, 2011 Jiten (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 28 Jul 2011. The bench was ARVIND KUMAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.