LAKHWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff-Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court assailing the order dated 15.10.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Amritsar as well as order dated 23.1.2009 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Amritsar whereby application moved by the Plaintiff seeking ad interim injunction restraining Defendants No. 1 to 4 not to interfere in the possession of the Plaintiff over the suit land was dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the present case are that Plaintiff-Petitioner has filed suit for declaration to the effect that Plaintiff is the exclusive legal and lawful owner in possession of the suit property with the pleadings inter alia that Plaintiff has purchased suit land from C.R. No. 6452 of 2009 Defendant/Respondent No. 5 vide sale deed dated 28.9.2006 and mutation pursuant to the sale deed was effected in favour of the Plaintiff. An application seeking ad interim injunction restraining Defendant not to interfere in the possession of the Plaintiff over the suit land was also moved alongwith the plaint.

(3.) Defendants No. 1 to 4 have filed their reply to the ad interim injunction application as well as written statement contending therein that Defendant No. 5 has also filed one suit for declaration against the contesting Defendant which was dismissed vide judgment dated 18.10.2006. It has further been contended that during the pendency of the suit filed by Defendant No. 5, Plaintiff-Petitioner has purchased the suit land vide sale deed dated 28.9.2006, hence, sale deed executed by Defendant No. 5 during the pendency of the suit is hit by principle of lis pendence. It has further been contended by the contesting Defendant that Plaintiff is neither owner nor in possession of the suit property. It was further contended that Defendant No. 5 was Govt. Contractor and after dismissal of his suit on 18.10.2006 possession has already been taken from Defendant No. 5 and now State Government is in possession of the property in dispute. It further contended that mutation in favour of the Plaintiff pursuant to sale deed 28.9.2006 has already been recalled.