High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCR/4278/2016disposed of

Harbhajan Singh v. Jeet Singh & ANR

2018-03-08Mr. Justice Arun Monga2 pages

Manoj Kumar 2018.03.13 13:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.4278 of 2016 #1#

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4278 of 2016 Harbhajan Singh ....Petitioner

Versus

Jeet Singh and Ors.

....Respondents Date of Order: 08.3.2018

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

Present:

Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1. AMIT RAWAL, J (ORAL) Petitioner-defendant No.2 is aggrieved of the concurrent orders dated 20.9.2013 (P.5) rendered by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Hoshiarpur whereby in the suit preferred by the respondents-plaintiffs claiming declaration in respect of the suit land as mentioned in the head note of the plaint, application filed by the respondents-plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC for grant of ad-interim injunction, has been allowed and the parties have been directed to maintain status quo regarding alienation of the suit property till further orders and order dated 03.9.2015 passed by Addl. District Judge, Hoshiarpur vide which the appeal of the petitioner has been disposed of while modifying the order of the trial Court to the extent that the parties to the suit shall maintain status quo regarding alienation with regard to land measuring 17 kanals 17 marlas.

CR No.4278 of 2016 #2# Before learned counsel for the parties could argue the case, it has been brought to the notice of the court that the suit was filed on 11.2.2013 and is listed for evidence of the respondents-plaintiffs. In my view, in case the orders under challenge is modified, it would lead to multiplicity of litigation and the plaintiffs would be left in lurch in case alienation is affected.

Without commenting on merits of the case, it would be in the fitness of things and will not lead to miscarriage of justice if while upholding the impugned orders, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by affording four effective opportunities each to both the parties to lead their evidence. Disposed of accordingly.

March 08, 2018 `(AMIT RAWAL) manoj JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No