ANGREJ KAUR Vs. BALWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANGREJ Kaur -petitioner has filed this civil revision petition against Balwant Singh -respondent No.1 and Smt. Akki and others -proforma respondents under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 18.11.2014 (Annexure -P.3) passed by Additional District Judge, S.A.S. Nagar and the order dated 18.2.2012 (Annexure -P.2) passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dera Bassi, District S.A.S. Nagar, whereby the application moved by Balwant Singh -respondent No.1/plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction in suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been allowed. I have heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued that earlier a civil suit has been filed for declaration and for partition and for permanent injunction which has been decreed and the judgment and decree has become final. Plaintiff -Balwant Singh had already sold the share to Surinder Pal Singhrespondent No.8. Therefore, he has no share in the property and not entitled for any ad interim injunction there being no prima facie case in his favour nor balance of convenience lies in his favour.

(3.) A perusal of the record shows that Balwant Singh -plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein) filed the suit against Angrej Kaur etc. for declaration and for partition and for permanent injunction regarding the two houses. His main plea is that earlier the suit property was owned and possessed by Prabhu Ram and after his death, it was inherited by Prem Singh, Ram Pratap, Angrej Kaur and Chanan Kaur. The plaintiff is the only sole heir of Smt. Chanan Kaur being her only son and succeeded the right in the suit property being co -sharer. Defendants No.1 and 2 have intentionally and deliberately with full knowledge manipulated the facts with mala fide intention to deprive the plaintiff from his right in the suit properties and have filed the civil suit thereby seeking declaration and separate possession in the suit property to the extent of 1/4 th share by misrepresenting facts and by committing fraud upon the plaintiff, as such the judgment and decree dated 19.4.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kharar and final decree dated 9.9.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mohali, deserve to be declared null and void being result of fraud and misrepresentation as the plaintiff was not impleaded as a party to the suit intentionally and deliberately despite the fact that he was a necessary party in that suit and defendants No.1 and 2 being plaintiffs in the suit have manipulated the facts and misrepresenting the same before the learned trial Court that the plaintiff being legal heir of Smt. Chanan Kaur have sold his share in both the houses as mentioned in the suit property despite the fact that he had sold his share to the extent of 1/4 th share only in the land measuring 0 -8 Marlas bearing Khewat/Khata No.75/77, Khasra No.8//20/2 (0 -2) and 32 (0 -6) situated in Village Zirakpur.