DHARAMBIR Vs. M/S. GLADE PROP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 04.01.2012 (Annexure P-4) whereby, the injunction has been declined to the petitioner-plaintiff and to the order dated 15.07.2014 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon upholding the said order.

(2.) A perusal of the paper book would go on to show that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction claiming himself to be the owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 64 kanals situated in the revenue estate of Village Nangli Umarpur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. The claim was that the plaintiff and the proforma defendants no. 6 to 10 have raised and bored a tube-well for irrigation purpose and subsequently also raised construction of residential house and were in possession of Killa No. 13//4 out of the land in question which has been utilized for cultivation of fodder as well as crops and were living in the said property. Partition proceedings were initiated by defendants. It was submitted that respondents no. 1 to 4, who are the alleged builders, purchased some land and filed partition proceedings in the Court of Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Gurgaon without filing the complete documents. The mandatory provisions were not complied with and service was not effected upon them and the proceedings were completed at their back and were thus, void ab initio and without jurisdiction. It was alleged that the mode of partition was sanctioned and accepted on the same day i.e. on 17.06.2009 and the Naksha Bay was called on 22.06.2009, after 5 days of sanctioning of the mode of partition and accepted on 01.07.2009.

(3.) The application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was also filed on the same set of allegations, which was opposed by the respondents no. 1 to 4 on the ground that Mutation No. 868 had been sanctioned on the basis of the order of partition and had been duly acted upon and land measuring 38 kanals had fallen to the share of the said defendants. It was denied that no opportunity of hearing was given and that the proceedings were at the back of the plaintiff and the proforma defendants.