Balaji Trading Comp. Hathin v. Narender Singh And Another

S. No.121

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

**** CR No.4939 of 2024 Date of Decision:30.08.2024 Balaji Trading Company Hathin, District Palwal .....Pe22oner Vs.

Narender Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. S.K. Panwar, Advocate for the peoner.

**** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (Oral) Applicaon under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC read with Secon 151 CPC, seeking temporary injuncon, moved by plainff - Narender Singh Soni (now respondent No.1) was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 10.02.2021 (Annexure P7). However, the appeal filed by him has been accepted by the learned Addional District Judge, Palwal vide impugned order dated 30.05.2024 (Annexure P9), restraining defendant No.1 - Market Commi7ee Hathin (now respondent No.2) from renewing the licence in favour of defendant No.2 - Balaji Trading Company Hathin (peoner herein). 2.

Assailing the afore-said order, it is contended by learned counsel that the other co-sharers of the property in dispute were not impleaded as party and that plainff- respondent No.1 was not the sole owner of the property. 3.

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the peoner and have perused the paper book.

4.

The disputed property is Shop No.7 in Anaj Mandi, Tehsil Hathin. The said shop was allo7ed to Shri Shambhu Dayal, the predecessor-in-interest of plainff- Narender Singh Soni. On the death of Shambhu Dayal, plainff along with his siblings and mother inherited the property. One Rakesh Kumar filed a suit for declaraon claiming tle and possession of the suit property but that suit was dismissed way-back on 31.03.2012. Therea<er, another suit was filed by one Pawan Kumar against Market Commi7ee and successor-in-interest of Rakesh Kumar. That ma7er was ulmately compromised and the successors of the deceased- Shambhu Dayal were admi7ed to be owners of the suit property. The RENU 2024.08.30 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

  

 Court directed the Market Commi7ee, Hathin to execute the conveyance deed in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased- Shambhu Dayal. 5.

As plainff came to know that defendant No.1 - Market Commi7ee Hathin had issued the licence in favour of Balaji Trading Company, Hathin, in respect of the shop in dispute, he brought a suit for permanent injuncon. 6.

The stand of the peoner - defendant No.2 was that he was the tenant under Rakesh Kumar.

7.

Once it has been found that suit filed by Rakesh Kumar had been dismissed way back on 31.03.2012 and the peoner alleged to be tenant under Rakesh Kumar, obviously, he cannot claim any independent right. Since Rakesh Kumar is found to have no right, tle or interest in the suit property, therefore, the learned Appellate Court did not commit any error in allowing the applicaon under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the plainff- respondent No.1. 8.

As such, holding the present revision to be devoid of any merit, the same is hereby dismissed.

August 30, 2024 (DEEPAK GUPTA) renu JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No
 

    RENU 2024.08.30 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh