Cs No. 679 of 2023 · Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2024
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. 39 rr. 1, 2
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. No illegality or perversity could be pointed out in the impugned orders. As such finding no merit in the present pe(cid:27)(cid:27)on, the same is hereby dismissed. October 23, 2024 ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable Yes/No Yes/No RENU 2024.10.24 18:02 I…
Judgment
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. G.S. Kuka, Advocate for the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (Oral) During pendency of the Civil Suit bearing CIS No.CS/679/2023 (cid:27)tled as “Surjit Kaur Vs. Kirpal Singh alias Karam Singh”, an applica(cid:27)on under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was moved by the plain(cid:27)ff- Surjit Kaur (pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oner herein) which was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 21.08.2023. Said order has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 05.04.2024 (Annexure P.3).
Assailing the afore-said finding, it is contended by learned counsel that the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oner is in possession of the disputed shop and that she had even deposited the electricity bill.
However, learned counsel for the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oner failed to convince this Court regarding the possession of the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oner as he failed to point out towards any document to indicate the possession of the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oner. As has been observed by the Courts below, that it is the sister of the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oner who was in possession of the disputed shop. Earlier, the father of the plain(cid:27)ff was in possession, who had executed a Will dated 25.06.2020 in favour of Harjit Kaur i.e. the sister of plain(cid:27)ff. The plain(cid:27)ff was disinherited by her father as she had performed marriage against his wishes. Later on, the shop was returned by sister of the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oner to the owner Thakur Dwara Gaddi Bawa Lal Ji vide affidavit dated 20.08.2021. The owner subsequently rented out the shop to the defendant @1,000/- per month and thus, it is now the RENU 2024.10.24 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No.3106 of 2024 -2- defendant, who is in possession of the shop since 20.08.2021 onwards as authorised tenant.
No illegality or perversity could be pointed out in the impugned orders. As such finding no merit in the present pe(cid:27)(cid:27)on, the same is hereby dismissed. October 23, 2024 ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable Yes/No Yes/No RENU 2024.10.24 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. 39 rr. 1, 2.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 23 Oct 2024. The bench was DEEPAK GUPTA.
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.