RAM PIARI Vs. VIJAY SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order of the learned trial court as also of the appellate court, dismissing his application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, by which she sought an interim injunction restraining the respondent-defendant from constructing upon what the petitioner contends to be her property, i.e. Khasra no.3319, (of which she states she is the exclusive owner), falling in the revenue estate of Village Dadial, 'Hadbast' no. 640, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner who has appeared today and has filed a fresh power of attorney (with a 'no objection' endorsed thereupon by counsel previously appearing), submits that as a matter of fact as regards the demarcation report relied upon by the defendants, firstly, the person at whose instance the demarcation is allegedly stated to have been carried out, i.e. Parladh Singh, is not a party to the present lis and further, as regards the contention (accepted by the learned courts below for the purpose of the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC), that the said demarcation report had been accepted by the son of the petitioner, as a matter of fact she has no son by the name of Davinder Singh (he being the person who is stated to have signed the said report).

(3.) He points to the last part of paragraph 3 of the written statement filed by the respondent-defendant before the trial Court as also to paragraphs 3 and 12 of the impugned order, to submit with regard to the reference to Davinder Singh as the son of the petitioner-plaintiff.