RANJIT SINGH Vs. AJMER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition by the defendant against the restraint orders passed by the trial Court and appellate Court.

(2.) A civil suit, seeking permanent injunction, has been filed by the plaintiff Ajmer Singh against his brother, Ranjit Singh. An application, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, was also filed by the plaintiff, seeking an order of restraint against the defendant so that the latter did not interfere with the possession of the plaintiff on the suit land. The said application was allowed by the trial Court by order dated August 5, 1997 and the defendant was restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the suit land. The defendant's appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, vide order dated July 29, 1998.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant has argued that a caveat was filed by the defendant in the trial Court on May 29, 1997 but the trial Court passed an ex parte order on June 13, 1997. This was not permissible in law in view of Section 148A of Code of Civil Procedure. It is explained by the learned counsel that where a caveat is filed, the trial Court cannot proceed with the matter unless the caveator is given notice and an opportunity to be heard. Since the trial Court passed an ex parte order, the entire proceedings, therefore, were a nullity. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in paragraphs No. 2, 4 and 5 of the plaint, no dates have been specified by the plaintiff, while describing the incidents of interference by the defendant. Besides, the verification appended to the plaint is also not in accordance with law, as provided in Order 6 Rule 15, Code of Civil Procedure.