RESHMA Vs. RANDEEP KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Reshma-petitioner/plaintiff has filed this civil revision petition against Randeep Kaur etc.-respondents/defendants under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside the impugned judgment dated 15.5.2014 (Annexure-P. 5) passed by the learned District Judge, Fatehabad, vide which the order dated 12.8.2013 (Annexure-P. 4) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehabad has been set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

(2.) From the record, I find that the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehabad vide order dated 12.8.2013 accepted the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff and the defendants were restrained from acquiring possession over the land allocated to their shares in consequence of the order dated 13.8.2012 and to restrain the plaintiff from enjoying a joint possession over the suit land, equivalent to her share.

(3.) As per the facts of the case, the plaintiff is co-sharer to the extent of 52/313 share in the suit land on the basis of sale deed No. 4481 dated 19.8.2011. Subsequently, the plaintiff alienated 2 Kanals 2 Marlas 5 Sarsai land to Smt. Radhika. The plaintiff filed application before A.C. IInd Grade, Fatehabad for partition of the suit land. It is the case of the plaintiff, that though, defendants No. 1 and 2 appeared during the proceedings of that application, yet they did not disclose about the case pending and during the proceedings defendants No. 1 and 2 managed to get a false report from the postal authorities on the registered envelope as - 'Left', whereas the plaintiff is still residing in House No. 268, Sector 14, Sonepat. It is stated that the applicant was required to file correct address of the present plaintiff. Husbands of defendants No. 1 and 2 are politically influential persons. Therefore, the entire land falling on the main road had been allocated to the share of defendants No. 1 and 2. It is argued that the impugned order dated 11.7.2012 and 13.8.2012 passed by A.C. IInd Grade, Fatehabad are illegal and if defendants No. 1 and 2 are not restrained from taking forcible possession of the agricultural land falling on the front area along the main road, the plaintiff shall suffer irreparable loss and injury, which would not be compensated in terms of money.