MUKHTIAR KAUR Vs. HARCHARAN KAUR ALIAS KAMLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a civil suit filed by plaintiffs Harcharan Kaur @ Kamla and her son Balkar Singh, resident of Kirpal Nagar, Ludhiana against defendant Mukhtiar Kaur, a resident of that very area, defendant Mukhtiar Kaur on appearance had filed counter-claim moving an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC for grant of ad interim injunction restraining the plaintiffs/respondents from recovering the rent from the tenants inducted in the suit property and depositing the same in the Court and also for directing the plaintiffs to furnish the details of such tenants, their names, addresses and rent being received from them. The defendant/counter-claimant had contested the claim of the plaintiffs that they are owners in possession of the suit property and sale deed bearing document No.8418 dtd. 28/7/2008 is illegal, null and void and rather craved for grant of mandatory injunction directing the plaintiffs to vacate the suit property besides asking for mesne profits from the plaintiffs. She had based her claim on sale deed dtd. 28/7/2008 executed by late Sh.Gurdev Singh predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs in her favour contending that at request of Sh.Gurdev Singh, she had allowed him to stay in the property for few days but thereafter he died. The plaintiffs were permitted to stay in the suit property for some days but instead of vacating the same, they illegally inducted the tenants in the property and thereafter filed the suit for grant of permanent injunction against the defendant.

(2.) The counter-claim and the application for ad interim injunction were opposed by the plaintiffs.

(3.) After hearing arguments, the trial Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Ludhiana vide order dtd. 28/4/2016 dismissed the application. For ready reference, the operative part of the order is as under: 6. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and after perusing the record, I am of the view that it is admitted fact that plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property. It is further admitted that tenants have been inducted in the suit property by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are claiming the suit property and are claiming that the above said sale deed is a forged document. On the other hand the defendant has filed the counter claim for mandatory injunction to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the defendant and for further mesne profits for the same suit property. When the defendant has filed the counter claim for mesne profits therefore no irreparable loss is going to be suffered to the defendant on paying the rent by the tenants to the plaintiffs. If the counter claim of defendant is decreed, she shall be entitled to all the mesne profits for use of the suit property by the plaintiffs. Therefore no prima facie case is made out in favour of the defendant and no irreparable loss is going to be suffered by the defendant. Moreover no balance of convenience lies in favour of the defendant and the present application requires dismissal.