RAJINDER KAUR Vs. SUKHBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by Smt. Rajinder Kaur and Miss Surinder Kaur, petitioners, who were arrayed as defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit, against the order of dismissal of their appeal bearing MCA No. 143 of 1998 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar affirming the order dated 9-2-1998 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, who had dismissed their Miscellaneous Application No. 27 of 1997 moved under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code') against the respondent Nos. 1 to 12 out of which respondent No. 1 was the plaintiff in the main suit while respondents No. 2 to 12 were arrayed as parties to the application filed by the petitioners under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code. Along with the revision petition an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition under S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 1963 Act) has also been filed.

(2.) In order to get a complete picture of the controversy involved, essential facts have to be noticed, Sukhbir Singh, respondent No. 1 in the present petition, had filed civil Suit No. 186 of 1993 for permanent injunction restraining Smt. Rajinder Kaur and Miss Surinder Kaur, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from alienating more than their share and any specific portion out of the suit property situated in Revenue Estate of Village Dekoha, Tehsil and District Jalandhar fully described in the heading of the plaint. It was pleaded by him that the suit property was initially owned by their father S. Raghbir Singh Dhillon and after his death, it devolved on his legal heirs i.e. plaintiff and his two sisters defendant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in equal shares. In this manner, the parties had acquired 1/3rd share each in the suit property. The suit property had not been partitioned up to the date of filing of the suit and continued to be their joint property. On coming to know that defendants were bent upon disposing of not only their shares in the property but also specific khasra numbers of the land, which is more valuable than rest of the land because of its location, in order to injure the interest of the plaintiff, he called upon the defendants to desist from doing so but no heed was paid to his request which forced him to file the present suit against them. The suit was resisted by the defendants. They pleaded that they have every right to sell their property and as the plaintiff himself had been selling part of the property. he had no right to claim injunction against them in the suit. During the pendency of the said suit, the trial Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the possession and alienation of the land in dispute as per order dated 3-11-1993. However, during the pendency of the suit Sukhbir Singh, plaintiff executed six sale deeds in June 1996 in violation and disobedience of the order of the trial Court to maintain status quo with regard to alienation and possession of the suit property. Aggrieved by the action of plaintiff, an application under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code was filed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 on 25-9-1997 for initiating of proceedings for breach of injunction order against Sukhbir Singh, which was resisted by him. It was also prayed by them that sale deeds should be declared null and void and they be paid Rs. 5 lacs as damages against the plaintiff, but before that application could be decided, the suit was finally decreed on 12-10-1996 in terms of the relief claimed by the plaintiff in the suit.

(3.) The learned trial Judge dismissed the application on the ground that with the passing of the decree dated 12-10-1996 in the suit, the order passed in the application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code had come to an end and the application filed by the applicants under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code was not maintainable. The other prayer made in the application was also declined. Resultantly, the application was dismissed on 9-2-1998. In appeal against the said order, the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar came to the conclusion that no appeal lies against the order of the Court as the impugned order was not an order within the meaning of Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code as with the dismissal of the suit, there was no disobedience of the injunction order passed by the learned trial Judge. Consequently, the appeal was held to be not maintainable and was dismissed on 8-9-1998. It is these orders, which have been challenged in this revision petition.