The High Court
Case Details
(O&M) CR-3434-2021 (O&M) -1- - 240 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR CR-3434-2021 (O&M) Reserved Reserved on :- 11.08.2025 Pronounced on:-12.08.2025 Pronounced on: Darshan Singh and Another Darshan Singh and Another ....Petitioners Swaran Singh ....Respondent VERSUS
Legal Reasoning
concurrent findings of fact that the petitioners have failed to establish a prima facie concurrent findings of fact that the petitioners have failed to establish a prima facie concurrent findings of fact that the petitioners have failed to establish a prima facie concurrent findings of fact that the petitioners have failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable loss in their favour. They have further case, balance of convenience, or irreparable loss in their favour. They have further case, balance of convenience, or irreparable loss in their favour. They have further case, balance of convenience, or irreparable loss in their favour. They have further TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.21 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-3434-2021 (O&M) -3- - ion of the suit land rests with the defendant pursuant to the found that possession of the suit land rests with the defendant pursuant to the ion of the suit land rests with the defendant pursuant to the found that possess registered sale deed dated 04.01.2021. registered sale deed dated 04.01.2021. OBSERVATIONS/FINDINGS OBSERVATION 7. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 CPC, The revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 CPC, The revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 CPC, The revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 CPC, e High Court does not particularly in matters of interim injunctions, is limited. The High Court does not particularly in matters of interim injunctions, is limited. Th particularly in matters of interim injunctions, is limited. Th act as a court of appeal to re appreciate evidence or substitute its discretion ourt of appeal to re-appreciate evidence or substitute its discretion appreciate evidence or substitute its discretion urisdictional error, exercised by the courts below, unless the order suffers from jurisdictional error, exercised by the courts below, unless the orde exercised by the courts below, unless the orde or patent illegality. perversity or patent illegality. 8. rs have not been able to point out any n the present case, the petitioners have not been able to point out any rs have not been able to point out any In the present case, the petitione such jurisdictional error or perversity or illegality such jurisdictional error or perversity in the impugned orders. The or illegality in the impugned orders. The courts below have considered the pleadings, documents, and circumstances, and courts below have considered the pleadings, documents, and circumstances, and courts below have considered the pleadings, documents, and circumstances, and courts below have considered the pleadings, documents, and circumstances, and have rendered a plausible view supported by reasons. have rendered a plausible view supported by reasons. have rendered a plausible view supported by reasons. 9. This Court is also of the view that no prima facie case or balance of This Court is also of the view that no prima facie case or balance of This Court is also of the view that no prima facie case or balance of This Court is also of the view that no prima facie case or balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs convenience lies in favour of the petitioners It may also be noticed that /plaintiffs. It may also be noticed that the prayer of restraining the respondent from alienating the suit property cannot be the prayer of restraining the respondent from alienating the suit property cannot be the prayer of restraining the respondent from alienating the suit property cannot be the prayer of restraining the respondent from alienating the suit property cannot be granted at this stage, as any stage, as any alienate on effected during the pendency of the suit would, in any event, be governed by on effected during the pendency of the suit would, in any event, be governed by on effected during the pendency of the suit would, in any event, be governed by on effected during the pendency of the suit would, in any event, be governed by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and would remain subject to the outcome of the suit. and would remain subject to the outcome of the suit. and would remain subject to the outcome of the suit. CONCLUSION CONCLUSION 10. In view of the limited revisional scope, the concurrent findings of the In view of the limited revisional scope, the concurrent findings of the In view of the limited revisional scope, the concurrent findings of the In view of the limited revisional scope, the concurrent findings of the courts below, in the absence of any prima facie case or balance of convenience in in the absence of any prima facie case or balance of convenience in the absence of any prima facie case or balance of convenience in favour of the petitioners, and the applicability of the doctrine of lis pendens favour of the petitioners, and the applicability of the doctrine of favour of the petitioners, and the applicability of the doctrine of are TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.21 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-3434-2021 (O&M) -4- - upheld. This Cour his Court does not find any to interfere. Accordingly, the present revision to interfere. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed. petition is dismissed. 11.
Arguments
MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE M Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate for the petitioners. Present: Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. R.S.Joshi, Advocate for the respondent. Mr. R.S.Joshi, Advocate for the respondent. Mr. R.S.Joshi, Advocate for the respondent. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. MANDEEP PANNU 1. The present revision petition has been filed to challenge (i) the order The present revision petition has been filed to challenge (i) the order The present revision petition has been filed to challenge (i) the order The present revision petition has been filed to challenge (i) the order dated 05.07.2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda, dated 05.07.2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda, dated 05.07.2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda, dated 05.07.2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda, of the dismissing the petitioners’ application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the dismissing the petitioners’ application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 dismissing the petitioners’ application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as, “CPC’) Code of Civil Procedure, , and (ii) the 1908 (hereinafter referred to as, “CPC’), and (ii) the order dated 23.09.2021 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, order dated 23.09.2021 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, order dated 23.09.2021 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, order dated 23.09.2021 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, seek setting dismissing their appeal against the said order. The petitioners/plaintiffs seek setting dismissing their appeal against the said order. The petitioners dismissing their appeal against the said order. The petitioners of their application for temporary aside of the impugned orders and allowing of their application for temporary of their application for temporary aside of the impugned orders an injunction, restraining the respondent from taking forcible possession of the suit injunction, restraining the respondent from taking forcible possession of the suit injunction, restraining the respondent from taking forcible possession of the suit injunction, restraining the respondent from taking forcible possession of the suit land on the basis of sale deed dated 04.01.2021, and from alienating the suit land on the basis of sale deed dated 04.01.2021, and from alienating the suit land on the basis of sale deed dated 04.01.2021, and from alienating the suit land on the basis of sale deed dated 04.01.2021, and from alienating the suit property. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE 2. instituted a suit for It is contended that the petitioners/plaintiffs instituted a suit for It is contended that the petitioners It is contended that the petitioners executed by their mother, challenging the sale deed dated 04.01.2021, executed by their mother, challenging the sale deed dated 04.01.2021 declaration, challenging the sale deed dated 04.01.2021 Surjit Kaur, in favour of the defendant, as being illegal, void, fraudulent, and Smt. Surjit Kaur, in favour of the defendant, as being illegal, void, fraudulent, and Surjit Kaur, in favour of the defendant, as being illegal, void, fraudulent, and Surjit Kaur, in favour of the defendant, as being illegal, void, fraudulent, and TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.21 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-3434-2021 (O&M) -2- - that the sale deed was procured by taking without consideration. They alleged that the sale deed was procured by taking that the sale deed was procured by taking without consideration. They allege Surjit Kaur from the hospital without their knowledge, and is not binding upon Surjit Kaur from the hospital without their knowledge, and is not binding upon Surjit Kaur from the hospital without their knowledge, and is not binding upon Surjit Kaur from the hospital without their knowledge, and is not binding upon their rights as legal heirs. their rights as legal heirs. 3. d and, in It is further asserted that they are in possession of the suit land and, in It is further asserted that they are in possession of the suit lan It is further asserted that they are in possession of the suit lan have also sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining the the suit, they have also sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining the have also sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining the have also sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining the property. Similar relief respondent from dispossessing them or alienating the suit property. Similar relief respondent from dispossessing them or alienating the respondent from dispossessing them or alienating the claimed in their application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. has been claimed in their application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. claimed in their application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. claimed in their application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Alternatively, it is prayed that, at least, the tively, it is prayed that, at least, the respondent/ defendant be restrained respondent/defendant be restrained property pending disposal of the suit. from alienating the suit property pending disposal of the suit. from alienating the SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE 4. submits that the Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant submits that the Learned counsel for the respondent Learned counsel for the respondent defendant is in possession of the suit property, having purchased it from Surjit defendant is in possession of the suit property, having purchased it from Surjit defendant is in possession of the suit property, having purchased it from Surjit defendant is in possession of the suit property, having purchased it from Surjit Kaur through the sale deed dated 04.01.2021. It is further argued that t Kaur through the sale deed dated 04.01.2021. Kaur through the sale deed dated 04.01.2021. It is further argued that the plaintiffs have no cause of action for the interim relief sought, petitioners/plaintiffs have no cause of action for the interim relief sought, plaintiffs have no cause of action for the interim relief sought, plaintiffs have no cause of action for the interim relief sought, ave not specified any intended purchaser to whom the particularly as they have not specified any intended purchaser to whom the ave not specified any intended purchaser to whom the particularly as they h property is allegedly about to be sold. Both the property is allegedly about to be sold. Both courts below, having found no the courts below, having found no prima facie case in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs prima facie case in favour of the petitioners , have rightly dismissed the /plaintiffs, have rightly dismissed the application. 5. counsel for the parties and examined the record I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record counsel for the parties and examined the record I have heard learned with care. ANALYSIS OF THE RECORD ANALYSIS OF THE RECORD 6. Both the trial Court and the first appellate Court have recorded Both the trial Court and the first appellate Court have recorded Both the trial Court and the first appellate Court have recorded Both the trial Court and the first appellate Court have recorded
Decision
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 August 12, 2025 tripti (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non : Yes/No : Yes/No Whether reportable Whether reportable TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.21 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document