AJMEL SINGH Vs. KULWINDER SINGH AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff has filed this revision petition against the order of Additional District Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Tract Court, Ludhiana, dismissing the miscellaneous appeal filed by the plaintiff vide his order dated 18.10.2008 against the order dated 28.02.2007 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ludhiana, whereby an application, filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') was disposed of by the trial Court directing both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession over the suit property till the final disposal of the main case.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction in order to restrain defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession over the two shops falling in property No. 11/12 situated at Jawahar Nagar, Ludhiana. Pleaded case of the plaintiff is that he along with his brother Kuldeep Singh (since deceased) took one of the above said shops falling in property No. 11/12 from Morni Devi Wd/o Sh. Mangal Sain in the year 1984 @ Rs. 300/- per month and the other shop in the year 1989 @ Rs. 470/- per month. There was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and Morni Devi but the present defendants, who are absolute strangers are claiming themselves to be purchaser of the property without any proof. It was alleged that on 10.12.2005, the defendants along with some henchmen came to the property in question and removed some of the goods of the plaintiff from the almirah like letter pad, ledger books etc. and while leaving threatened to take forcible possession of both the shops. The plaintiff immediately sent telegrams and application to the Police authority and filed the suit as well. Defendants had lodged caveat application, supported by an affidavit of the same date, which was attested on 19.12.2005 by the Oath Commissioner, before the Court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Ludhiana on 14.12.2005, in which it was alleged mat the defendants are owners of the property in dispute in which the plaintiff is a tenant, The defendants are not using the property in dispute, which is lying locked. The learned trial Court, while disposing of the application for temporary injunction has observed that from the perusal of documents and pleadings it reveals that both the parties are claiming their possession over the suit property, which is a matter of evidence. So both the parties were directed to maintain status quo qua possession over the suit property till the final disposal of the main case.

(3.) The plaintiff filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court, which was dismissed on the ground that both the parties are claiming their possession over the suit property and the Court is not in a position to conclude, as to who is in actual possession, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession.