SHIV GOVIND SINGH Vs. GURMEET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision petition preferred under Article 227 read with section 151 CPC is to the order dated July 04, 2016 (Annexure P- 3), passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana whereby an order dated November 27, 2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Ludhiana has been set aside while accepting the appeal and an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC has been dismissed.

(2.) While assailing the impugned order dated July 04, 2016, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the same is absolutely unwarranted in the eyes of law or is liable to be set aside. In fact, it is the case of the appellant that entire sale consideration was paid by him at the time of purchase of the plot in question. Since he was not conversant with the Punjabi script, he was not aware that the respondent-defendant No. 1 has got typed the sale deed in her favour also to the extent of one half share. He only came to know about this fact when he obtained the certified copy of sale deed. In fact, appellant is already in possession of the disputed property. Since, respondent/defendant No. 1 has threatened to alienate the suit property as well as to interfere in his peaceful possession of the disputed property, a necessity arose to him to knock the doors of the civil court. He was constrained to file a suit for permanent injunction seeking restraining the respondent-defendant No. 1 from interfering his peaceful possession as well as to alienate the suit property on the basis of alleged sale deed dated August 13, 2001. An application moved under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC was though allowed by the learned trial court. But that order has been set aside and consequently an application has been dismissed while accepting the appeal vide impugned order dated July 04, 2016 without assigning any cogent reason. Since the plaintiff-appellant is already in possession of the property in suit, he is entitled to the injunction prayed for by way of acceptance of instant petition.

(3.) This court has given a deep thought to the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner but find the same to be of no legal weight.