Nishan Singh & Others v. Gulwinder der Singh
Case Details
IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Page 1 of 4 4 (cid:1) 132 Date of decision: 11.02.2025 Nishan Singh & gh & Another Gulwinder Sin r Singh Sandhu & Others Vs. CR-812-2025 (O&M) ...Petitioner(s) ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Sharad Mehra, Advocat for the petitioners. ocate NIDHI GUPTA, PTA, J. *** Present petition under Art r Article 227 of the Constitution of India is f is filed seeking quashing or set setting aside of order dated 04.10.2024 (A 4 (Annexure P1) passed by the the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tarn Tarn Taran vide which the applicat lication under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by th y the petitioners, was dismissed. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Brief facts of the case are t re that respondents No.2, 4, & 5 herein had file d filed a Civil Suit No.538/2018 title titled as “Nishan Singh & Others Vs. Gulwinder der Singh” (Annexure P2), against t st the respondent No.1; seeking declaration to n to the effect that they are own owners in possession qua their share in the he suit land as described in the p he plaint; and that their names figured in the the latest Jamabandi for the yea year 2013-14 as co-sharers in cultivating pos possession of the property. Vide o ide order dated 05.01.2019, the ld.trial Court d urt directed the parties to maintain ain status quo regarding the suit property. SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 3. It is the case of the pet petitioner that on 03.05.2019, Page 2 of 4 4 (cid:1) respondent N t No.1/defendant in the above su e suit instituted an application under Order der 39 Rule 2A CPC (Annexure P4 e P4) alleging therein that the plaintiffs/resp respondents No.2 and 3 tried to han hand over the possession of the suit property rty to the present petitioners on 1 n 16.04.2019. Respondent No.1 allegedly mad ade a request to respondents No.2 No.2 and 4 for not disturbing the status quo ord order dated 05.01.2019 to which t ich they allegedly did not adhere and created a d a path on the suit property by pu y putting soil on it with the help of JCB (owned ned by respondent No.6) and two two tractor-trollies being driven by respondent dents No.7 and 8. As such, the res respondent No.1 filed contempt proceedings a gs against respondents No.2 to 8, an 8, and the present petitioners. A DDR dated 01 d 01.11.2019 was also registered in d in Police Station Chohla Sahib qua this incid ncident. The petitioners filed reply eply (Annexure P5) objecting to the contempt mpt application on ground of maint aintainability etc. It was further pleaded by th y the petitioners that the plaintiffs/ iffs/respondents No.2 and 4 had filed a suit on t only against respondent No.1 and and the petitioners were not a party to the s he said suit. As such, contempt app pplication by respondent No.1 was not maint aintainable qua the present petitio titioners. It was further claimed by the petitio titioners that the father of petition itioner No.2 namely Gopal Singh was owner in r in possession of the suit land an and after his death, petitioner No.2 came int e into possession of the property be y being its owner on the basis of inheritance and that the petitioners never ever tried to violate the order passed by the the trial Court. As such, the pet petitioners moved the present SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) application un n under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC date dated 15.07.2024 (Annexure P6) stating therein rein that as the suit was only betwe etween respondents No.1, 2 and Page 3 of 4 4 (cid:1) 4 and the pet petitioners are not a party to it th it therefore, respondent No.1 is not entitled to ed to file contempt application aga against the petitioners and the same is not ot maintainable under law. Howeve wever, vide the impugned order dated 04.10.2 10.2024 (Annexure P1), the said ap id application of the petitioners has been dism dismissed. 4. Learned counsel submits its that the impugned order is unsustainable able as the learned trial Court has fa as failed to appreciate the above facts. It is subm submitted that the suit was filed by d by respondents No.2 and 4& 5 against respon spondent No.1/defendant and petit etitioners are not a party to the suit. Nor the the same was brought to the kn knowledge of the petitioners. Therefore, th , the contempt application can cannot proceed against the petitioners un s under law. It is submitted that th the learned trial Court did not take into con consideration the fact that the c e court can proceed against a person who is o is not a party to the injunction or n order only where it is apparent that the perso person who violated the order of of injunction was an agent or servant or wo workman of the defendant. In the the present case, the petitioner is not related ted to respondent No.2 and 4 & 5 5 in any manner and has been dragged into t to this litigation unnecessarily. It is It is accordingly prayed that the impugned ord order be set aside. Heard. I find no error in the impug pugned order. 5. 6. SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 7. It is an established positio sition in law that at the stage of Page 4 of 4 4 (cid:1) deciding an ap n application under Order 7 Rule ule 11 CPC, only the averments made in the the plaint are to be seen. The he Hon’ble Supreme Court in numerous jud judgments including “Eldeco Hou Housing and Industries Ltd. Vs. Ashok Vidyart yarthi & Others” Law Finder Doc ID oc ID # 2406865, has repeatedly held that no e no evidence or merits of the controv troversy can be examined at the stage of decid eciding rejection of a plaint in an ap n application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC; and th d that only the averments made in e in the plaint would be relevant for invoking O g Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. In “Kamala & ala & Others Vs. K.T. Eshwara Sa & Others” 200 2008 (12) SCC 661, it is held that in at in an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC CPC, no evidence can be looked ed into; issue on merits of the matter would uld not be within the realm of the the Court at that stage; and the Court would n ld not decide any evidence or disp disputed question of fact or law. In the present sent case, whetheror not the applica plication of the respondent no.1 underOrder 39 er 39 Rule 2A CPC was maintainabl nable against the petitioner is a matter of evid evidence. As such, the application tion of the petitioner has been rightly dismiss missed. 8. 9. 11.02.2025 Sunena Dismissed. Pending application(s) if an
Decision
if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether spea Whether repo peaking/reasoned: eportable: Yes/No Yes/No SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)