KARAM SINGH Vs. SATINDER PAL SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 06.08.2012 (Annexure P -1) and order dated 08.01.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurukshetra and the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, respectively, whereby the application of the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') has been dismissed and the application moved by the respondent -defendants as a counter -claim under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC has been allowed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , the petitioner as well as respondents are purchasers of the land vide different sale deeds. The petitioner and defendants have purchased the land jointly as has been depicted in the sale deed. The parties have also admitted before this Court that partition proceedings are already pending before the Revenue Authorities. Admittedly, the revenue record as well as the sale deeds show that the parties are co -sharers in the land and two separate sets of persons have purchased the land. However, some of the land was purchased by the defendant -respondents independently but the fact remains that the land is a joint land.

(3.) THIS Court is not generally inclined to interfere in the impugned order passed by the trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court. But both the Courts below have not discussed the documentary evidence by making specific reference to the revenue record and sale deeds on the basis of which the parties purchased land. This Court has perused both the documents, specifically the sale deeds, whereby both parties have jointly purchased the land vide different sale deeds and certain land was purchased by some of the defendants independently. In view of coupled with the fact that the partition proceedings are already pending, this Court deems it fit and proper to issue a direction to the parties to maintain status quo till the finalisation of the partition proceedings. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents with regard to factum that application for correction of Khasra Girdawari is concerned and the case has been remanded by the Financial Commissioner, it is made clear that the orders of Revenue Authorities are not binding on Civil Court, as those, has been passed during the pendency of the civil suit.