Ram Piari And ORS v. Parvati And ORS

Civil Revision No. 3255 of 2013 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 3255 of 2013 Date of Decision: 06.07.2015.

Ram Piari and others ......Petitioners

Versus

Parvati and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

Present:

Mr. N.K.Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate for Mr. Amit Shivrain, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2.

**** SABINA, J.

Petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging the order dated 24.4.2013 whereby application moved by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that respondents No. 1 and 2 had sought relief of possession and were liable to pay ad valorem Court fee.

Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that the said respondents had only filed the suit for permanent injunction and had not claimed the relief of possession as they were already in possession of the suit property.

A perusal of the plaint Annexure P-1 reveals that in the prayer clause, it has been prayed by respondents No. 1 and 2 that GURPREET SINGH 2015.07.08 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Civil Revision No. 3255 of 2013 -2the suit of the plaintiffs be decreed and a decree for permanent injunction may be passed in their favour restraining the defendants from alienating and transferring the share of respondents No. 1 and 2. It was further prayed that in case the defendants succeeded in dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land, then a decree for possession qua 1/6th share of respondents No. 1 and 2 qua the suit land, be passed in their favour.

Thus, it is evident that the plaintiffs have not filed suit for possession. Rather the case of the plaintiffs was that they are in possession of the suit land. It is only in case the plaintiffs are dispossessed from the suit land during the pendency of the suit, then they have sought that a decree for possession be passed in their favour. At this stage, there is nothing on record to suggest that the plaintiffs have alleged that they have been dispossessed from the suit land. In the facts and circumstances, there is no force in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners.

No ground for interference by this Court is made out. Dismissed.

(SABINA) JUDGE July 06, 2015 Gurpreet GURPREET SINGH 2015.07.08 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh