Dara Singh v. Om Parkash And Another

RSA No.5962 of 2017 (O&M) {1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.5962 of 2017 (O&M) Date of decision:24.01.2019 Dara Singh ... Appellant Vs.

Om Parkash and another ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present:- Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the appellant.

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral) The appellant-plaintiff has not been successful in seeking injunction against the respondent-defendants, who concededly are cosharers. The suit has primarily been dismissed on the ground that plaintiff has not been able to establish the exclusive possession. Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff submitted that though during the pendency of suit, partition proceedings were initiated and had culminated into finality and against the order of revenue Court, CWP No.11457 of 2014 is pending adjudication before this Court but threat of change of nature of suit land is writ large.

I am afraid the aforementioned argument is not sustainable as the remedy for claiming interim relief can always be availed in pending proceedings but the question arises whether the suit for injunction against the co-sharer in the absence of exclusive possession is maintainable or not, the answer is 'No' in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this SAVITA KADIAN 2019.01.28 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

RSA No.5962 of 2017 (O&M) {2} Court in Bhartu Vs. Ram Sarup 1981 PLJ 204. This is what has been noticed by both the Courts below. No ground for interference is made out. Resultantly, the regular second appeal is dismissed. (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE January 24, 2019 savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No SAVITA KADIAN 2019.01.28 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh